BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No.2) Bill [Lords]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 3 September (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 3 September (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tobacco Products (Packaging)

Cathy Jamieson: If he will bring forward legislative proposals on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Anna Soubry: The Government’s policy remains unchanged. We are waiting to see how the legislation recently introduced in Australia pans out before deciding whether to follow.

Cathy Jamieson: Given some of the Public Health Minister’s previous pronouncements, some of us could be forgiven for thinking that the Government’s policy has changed. Will she advise the House, therefore, on who overruled her support for this policy? Was it the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary or Lynton Crosby?

Anna Soubry: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has not listened to my last answer or, indeed, to my statement on Friday. The Government’s policy remains unchanged. We are waiting to see the evidence before making a decision. I take the very firm view that the best legislation is based on good evidence.

David Nuttall: Of course, there are those of us who believe it is up to the individual to take personal responsibility for their own health and who entirely support the Government’s decision not to have any extension of the nanny state. Does the Minister agree that, before we introduce any new laws on tobacco, we ought to enforce more strictly the existing laws on not selling cigarettes to children?

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points with which I agree, save for one: with great respect, standardised packaging would not be an extension of the nanny state, because it would not impinge on anybody’s freedom or right not only to buy cigarettes, but to smoke them. It is all about ensuring that the package is not attractive, especially to young people, who are at risk of taking up smoking.

Ian Austin: Earlier this year, I met young people from Dudley who set up the Kick Ash project campaigning for plain packaging. They showed me evidence from research that plain packaging would stop young people smoking in the first place, which is something every MP ought to be committed to trying to do. If the Government reject plain packaging, will those young people be right to conclude that the Government take the advice of big tobacco companies and their wealthy lobbyists more seriously than the views of young people in Dudley?

Anna Soubry: First, I pay tribute to Kick Ash. I am more than happy to meet those youngsters; they seem to be doing a very good job. Secondly, we are not in anybody’s pocket. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can say he is not in the pocket of any trade unions either. This is an important decision, but we have not made it yet; we are waiting to see how things develop in Australia, and as I say, good laws are based on good, sound evidence. That is the way forward.

John Pugh: Is the high evidential threshold being set for the plain packaging proposals to be applied across Government legislation or only where lobbyists are involved?

Anna Soubry: I am rather disappointed at that question from my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the Government take all these issues very seriously. I am proud of our emerging record on public health, but as I say, we have yet to make a decision, because, quite properly, we want to see what happens in Australia, and of course we are also waiting to see what happens elsewhere, notably in Ireland, where the Irish Government intend to introduce this policy. It might or might not be successful.

Diane Abbott: The Minister says, quite correctly, that the best legislation is based on evidence, but should it not also be untainted by the activities of lobbyists? She will be aware that Department of Health officials met Philip Morris Ltd at the end of January this year, but although minutes of meetings with other tobacco companies that occurred at the same time have been released, the Department insists that the minutes of the meeting with Philip Morris have yet to be finalised. Is it not the truth that the Government are trying to cover their tracks over their relationship with Lynton Crosby and his clients and that when it comes to the decision effectively to drop plain packaging for this Parliament, all roads lead back to No. 10 and Lynton Crosby?

Anna Soubry: I have just seen a piece of straw flying over, which the hon. Lady attempts to clutch at. [Interruption.] “Clutching at straws”—it is a bit lost on the Opposition, but that is more a sign of their difficulties than ours. The minutes of the meeting with that tobacco
	company have been published this morning. The reason for the delay—I very much hope the hon. Lady is not suggesting for one moment that my officials have been in any way dishonest—is because unfortunately the tobacco company did not agree the minutes, and there was some to-ing and fro-ing. I really wish she would not subscribe to conspiracy theories where they do not exist.

Adult Social Care

Stephen Timms: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on NHS services of changes in local authority spending on adult social care.

Daniel Poulter: Data on delayed transfer of care suggest that the interface between health and social care has improved since this Government have been in office. In 2012-13, the number of bed days lost because of delays attributable to social care was nearly 50,000 lower than in the previous year.

Stephen Timms: In May, the King’s Fund report, “Paying for social care” warned that local authority spending is continuing to fall and that fewer people are getting help. It is my understanding that last month an internal NHS document recognised that pressure on social care budgets meant “more delayed discharges”, increasing the problem in accident and emergency. Therefore, cuts to care budgets are increasing delayed discharges. What will the Minister do to tackle that problem?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman would have done well to listen to my answer before he read out a pre-prepared question. In 2012-13, the number of bed days lost because of social care delays was 50,000 fewer than the year before. However, he is absolutely right that we need to do more to ensure better integration and better joined-up care between the NHS and social care. That is what this Government are doing, and that is why we have allocated a £3.8 billion fund to do just that in the spending review.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no solution to the economic challenges facing the health and care system—still less any solution to the quality challenges that are increasingly coming to light—that does not involve proper integration of health and care? Is not the decision announced by the Chancellor a couple of weeks ago the first tangible step of a Government delivering a policy that Governments have talked about for a generation?

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always. He is a tremendous advocate—and has been since his time in office—of integrated health and social care, and of the transformation in the delivery of care that we need to make if we are to better look after patients with long-term conditions and the frail elderly. This Government are the first Government who are committed to doing that. Compare that with the real-terms cut in funding for social care that happened under the last Government, according to the Dilnot report.

Julie Hilling: Bolton hospital has told me that it needs a much greater concentration on social care. Indeed, a recent NHS
	Confederation survey of NHS chief executives and chairs said that two thirds said that a shortfall in local authority spending had impacted on their services over the past year. Will the Minister finally accept that the Government’s deep cuts to social care are having a serious effect on the ability of NHS to deliver safe care?

Daniel Poulter: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is referring to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services report that was published recently. It is important to look at that report in context and not misinterpret the figures. The report shows that spending has been roughly flat in social care, and the last survey also shows that councils are expecting a small increase in expenditure on social care next year. The 20% or £2.7 billion that is often touted by the Opposition in fact represents savings that councils have made through efficiencies, and that money is obviously being reinvested in front-line care.

David Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the long-term cost savings of integrating health and social care, as against the short-term cost of making the changes?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the figures show that last year alone 50,000 bed days that would otherwise have been wasted were saved by investing in social care and implementing the service transformation that we all require. However, this is about making all NHS and social care budgets go further, and recognising that if we are to improve the care of older people, particularly frail elderly people, we have to invest in more community prevention and community-based care, which is what this Government are doing.

Barbara Keeley: As we have heard, two thirds of NHS leaders have said that the shortfall in social care spending is having an impact on their services. The Minister can try to get rid of that and talk it away, but in week after week of taking evidence in our inquiry into emergency care, the Select Committee on Health has heard the same thing. We know that elderly patients now form a much larger proportion of admissions—40% of admissions to emergency units are people aged 65 to 85. Is not the £1.8 billion cut in spending now really hitting NHS services and making the emergency care crisis worse?

Daniel Poulter: I am afraid that the Opposition are very confused about their figures. As I explained earlier, the £2.7 billion—or 20%—figure represents the savings that councils have made to meet demand, and real-terms spending next year is expected to go up. The point from the ADASS and other surveys is that integration works. This Government are investing in integration. According to the Dilnot report, it was the last Government who cut in real terms the amount of spending going to social care between 2005 and 2010—and the hon. Lady was a member of that Government.

Mental Health

Bob Stewart: What steps he is taking to change negative perceptions of mental health issues.

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to the work done on this issue by my hon. Friend, as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and many others. They have done a huge amount to remove the taboo associated with mental health. We are funding the “Time to Change” campaign, with up to £16 million being put in from 2011 to 2015. The programme works to support and empower people to talk about their mental health problems and to tackle the discrimination that so many of them face. It includes for the first time a tailored programme of work for children and young people.

Bob Stewart: How confident is my hon. Friend that general practitioners are able to make rapid assessments of potential mental health problems, particularly clinical depression, when patients present themselves perhaps for other non-related matters?

Anna Soubry: We know that a third of GP appointments are mental health-related, so GPs have a lot of experience in tackling mental illness. We also know, however, that it is not covered extensively in GP training, which is why the Royal College of General Practitioners has identified improved care for people with mental health problems as a training priority—this is to be welcomed—through its enhanced GP training programme.

Andrew Love: Yet mental health spending has been cut over the last two years and we find ourselves in a position where four in 10 mental health trusts do not have safe levels of staffing. What is the Minister going to do about the funding and the staffing levels in our mental health services?

Anna Soubry: Of course, the overall health budget will be rising by some £12 billion by 2015, and in relation to mental health, I have to say that I am exceptionally proud of this Government for making mental health such a priority, notably through the mandate. I think we are to be congratulated on at last recognising how important mental health is. In our view, it underpins almost all public health matters and so many of the troubles and conditions that people present to GP surgeries. Therefore, I think we are doing an extremely good job on this subject.

Francis Report (Staffing Levels)

Valerie Vaz: What plans he has to implement the recommendation of the Francis report on safe staffing levels.

Jeremy Hunt: We agree with Robert Francis that there is a need for evidence-based guidance and tools to inform appropriate staffing levels. We have set out a number of recommended actions to support appropriate staffing levels in “Compassion in Practice”—the nursing, midwifery and care staff vision and strategy for England.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but Robert Francis said in his report that minimum safe staffing levels lead to helping patient safety. If the Secretary of State agrees with Robert Francis, why does he not implement that recommendation now?

Jeremy Hunt: I do agree with Robert Francis, but as he said in Nursing Times, there is an apparent misunderstanding by many people about what his recommendations actually were. This is what he said:
	“I did not recommend there should be a national minimum staffing standard for nursing. The government was criticised for not implementing one, which it is said I recommended, which I didn’t.”

Andrew Percy: As someone who worked in the public services before my election here, I well understand the pressure put on public servants to cover up bad news. I was contacted by a nurse yesterday who informed me that concerns that were raised at a training day were dismissed by a matron—people were told to put them in the bin. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything to ensure that nurses who are concerned about staffing levels feel free to speak out and will be protected?

Jeremy Hunt: What my hon. Friend says is incredibly important. We must have a culture of openness and transparency inside the NHS, which means that people at the front line feel empowered to speak up if they think there is a problem. That has not happened in the past, and we are going to put it right.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State will make a statement shortly about the Keogh review. Two of the hospitals investigated are Basildon and Tameside. The previous Government left a warning in place on both trusts about patient safety. This Government have ignored those warnings and allowed both trusts to make severe cuts to front-line staff. Tameside has cut 128 nursing posts and Basildon an unbelievable 345. Given the warnings he inherited, why on earth has he allowed that to happen?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to mention what happened at Tameside. Tameside had high death rates for eight years under Labour. The previous Government ignored a whistleblower in 2005, warnings to Parliament in 2006, a coroner’s report in 2006 and warnings from my predecessor in 2009. To cap it all, in 2009 the hospital was given a “good” rating by the Care Quality Commission. How bad is that?

Andy Burnham: I am afraid the Secretary of State is simply wrong. At the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I ordered unannounced inspections into Tameside. The Secretary of State should get his facts straight before he comes to this Dispatch Box. He did not answer on staffing, and it gets worse, Mr Speaker. Seven of the 14 hospitals in the Keogh review have between them cut a shocking 1,117 nursing jobs on this Government’s watch. Unsurprisingly, A and E performance has plummeted at all seven. All 14 hospitals were meeting the A and E target in my time in office; none of them are meeting it under the Secretary of State. Is not the right response to the Keogh review to stop dithering and act now on safe staffing levels?

Jeremy Hunt: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the Keogh review before we have our statement. I am particularly surprised because the
	Keogh review is the review that Labour never wanted to have, with high death rates in all those hospitals stretching back to 2005 and a record of inaction by Labour. As former—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I think the House might be interested to hear this. as former Labour councillor and Mid Staffs campaigner Ken Lownds said today:
	“Can you imagine a Keogh review under Andy Burnham or any Labour Health Secretary? Not a chance.”

Children’s Heart Surgery (Review)

Jason McCartney: Whether the new review of children’s heart surgery units will cover adult as well as paediatric cardiac surgery.

Anna Soubry: I am informed by NHS England that it will include adult surgery in its review of care for people with congenital heart disease.

Jason McCartney: Can NHS England assure us that a clear link will be shown between the feedback from patients, the public and stakeholders and the final configuration of services in the review of the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit?

Anna Soubry: Let me first pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend continues to do in support of his hospital and his children’s heart unit. NHS England has told me that individuals and patient organisations have all been encouraged to engage with and contribute to the local review process. The feedback received will be used to help to inform the outcome of the review of children’s heart surgery at Leeds.

East of England Ambulance Trust

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to meet the acting chief executive of the East of England ambulance trust to discuss that trust’s recovery plan.

Daniel Poulter: The NHS Trust Development Authority is working with the trust to review its action plan and monitor progress in response to the findings of the recent governance review and the Marsh report. Ministers will keep the situation under review.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the efforts and professionalism of front-line staff, the organisation has been badly led and has lurched from crisis to crisis? Does he have confidence in the new management team and the recovery plan? Does he not agree that the time might have come to break up this large organisation and move it into smaller units that are closer to the communities?

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and his diligent local campaigning on the issue. He is absolutely right that the Marsh review highlighted a failure of leadership at the trust and in the trust board as well as a disconnect between the front-line staff, who work effectively and well, and that leadership. We now have a new team at the top and we must give it time to respond to the Marsh report and put in place the right
	measures. I believe that efficiencies can be made at a back office and regional level, but there is a good case for ensuring that more localised data are presented about ambulance response times countywide.

Jamie Reed: The East of England ambulance service is failing to meet the needs of patients on the Secretary of State’s watch. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has said:
	“This did not used to happen.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 19WH.]
	The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has said:
	“Lives are put at risk.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 2WH.]
	Does the Minister agree with those Members, and does he believe that clinical outcomes for patients in the east of England have been affected by the collapsing service over which he has presided?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman would do well to heed the Marsh review before asking his questions, because it highlights a fundamental, systemic failure of leadership at the ambulance trust which dates back to the last Government’s time in office. As we know, the number of NHS managers in the east of England rose by 86.4% under the last Government, but there was a lack of connection between the managers of the trust and front-line staff. Government Members are promoting clinical leadership, and trusting clinicians and front-line paramedics to deliver a much better ambulance service. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should prepare his questions more thoroughly in future, and should read the Marsh review before he asks them.

Health Services (Worcestershire)

Karen Lumley: What recent assessment he has made of the joint service review on the future of health services in Worcestershire.

Daniel Poulter: The configuration of local health services is a matter for the local NHS. Commissioners in Worcestershire are working with local health care providers and stakeholders to develop proposals for the future provision of acute services across the county, which will be subject to public consultation later this year.

Karen Lumley: Does the Minister agree that the people of Redditch deserve to see the implementation of the two options that he promised in Westminster Hall in February, after 18 months of indecision and uncertainty in Worcestershire about the future of our hospitals, including Alexandra hospital, which he visited with me?

Daniel Poulter: It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s local hospital, and I agree that it is time that consultation took place on firm proposals. The proposals that we discussed during the Westminster Hall debate appeared to me to have considerable merit, and I understand that local commissioners will present them in a timely manner later this year.

Kettering General Hospital

Philip Hollobone: What assessment he has made of recent improvements in services to patients at Kettering general hospital.

Daniel Poulter: Monitor, as the regulator of foundation trusts, is working with NHS England, the Care Quality Commission and local commissioners to ensure that the trust has robust plans to make the necessary improvements. The emergency care intensive support team has given the trust advice and support to help it to develop plans to improve its A and E performance.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister congratulate all those at Kettering general hospital who have been involved in various recent developments? For instance, urology patients are being given the anti-cancer drug mitomycin C, which halves the risk of a recurrence; a CT scanner that is 10 times more powerful than its predecessor is facilitating CT angiography; and 44% of colorectal operations—twice the national average—are being performed on a keyhole basis.

Daniel Poulter: I am happy to commend Kettering general hospital for some of the improvements in care that have been made recently. My hon. Friend will, of course, want to ensure that that progress is sustained during the weeks and months ahead. As he will know, Monitor is still overseeing the trust to ensure that patient care and performance remain up to standard.

Andy Sawford: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Kettering general hospital also serves my constituents, and I look forward to meeting the Minister this week to discuss the pressures that are being imposed on it. One of the trust’s main problems is having to spend money from its acute budget on local care home beds. Does the Minister recognise that that should not be happening?

Daniel Poulter: The approach that must be adopted to ensure that health and social care services are joined up in the way that we need will vary in different parts of the country, and in accordance with differing health care needs and demographic challenges. I look forward to discussing that and other issues further when I meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) tomorrow or on Thursday.

NHS 111 Service

Siobhain McDonagh: What assessment he has made of the roll-out of the NHS 111 telephone service.

Jeremy Hunt: NHS 111 is now available in more than 90% of England. Despite some problems with the sites where it was launched around Easter, performance has now stabilised significantly. NHS 111 is now the principal entry route for access to the urgent care system, and nearly 600,000 patients accessed the service in May.

Siobhain McDonagh: Let me take the opportunity to make a confession to the House. Six weeks ago on Friday, I rang 111 as I watched one of my best friends vomit. She had been vomiting for 10 days, had been to see her GP four times, and had telephoned 111 on two occasions, on each of which she was told to go away and take antibiotics.
	I did what no Member of Parliament wants to do. I said to the operator “I am an MP, and I will take this up in the House if you do not deal with it properly.” Forty minutes later an ambulance arrived, and my friend was saved from a massive heart attack. What happens to people who have no one to speak for them, and no one who can say “I am an MP”?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady makes a very important point and I do not want to defend that service in the instance she cited at all. It is completely unacceptable if that kind of thing has to happen. The principle of 111—which is for people to have an easy-to-remember number and to be able to be connected to a clinician directly if they need to be, which did not happen with NHS Direct—is a good one, but it is not happening in practice as much as it needs to be. We are broadly meeting our operational standards, but it is not good enough and she has given a very good example as to why.

Anne McIntosh: First, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for responding to the recent debate we held on this issue? When it was my own father in those circumstances, I did not say that I was an MP, as I felt that would be an abuse of the system. I am delighted that North Yorkshire has reported no problems since 111 was introduced, but there is the issue of the deficit for clinical commissioning groups, which we hope will not detract from the 111 service. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the review of funding will be brought forward at the earliest possible moment?

Jeremy Hunt: I am pleased the 111 service worked more satisfactorily in my hon. Friend’s case. NHS England is working on the funding formula and it hopes to make any necessary changes in time for the next funding round, which starts in April 2014.

Liz Kendall: Ministers were repeatedly warned about problems with their 111 roll-out by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Ambulance Service Network and private providers, but they ploughed on regardless. The result was patients left waiting hours for call-backs, more ambulances sent out and more pressure on already struggling A and Es. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the pattern of the seasons, so if he wants to avoid another A and E crisis this winter, can he explain why Bruce Keogh’s review of urgent and emergency care will not even report until next spring?

Jeremy Hunt: Actually, the hon. Lady is wrong, because Bruce Keogh’s review of urgent and emergency care with respect to vulnerable older people, and particularly with respect to the way the 111 service operates, will report this autumn, precisely so that we can make sure we learn any lessons we need to learn for this winter, and it is very important that we should do so.

Muscle-Wasting Conditions

Caroline Lucas: If he will take steps to ensure that people affected by muscle- wasting conditions in the South East Coast NHS area are adequately supported after September 2013; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry: NHS England commissions some elements of neurological services through specialist services commissioning arrangements, while clinical commissioning groups commission general neurological services. I am informed that the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Surrey and Sussex area team are considering funding the care pathway adviser post for a further six months.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Minister for her answer, but an exploration just for the potential of a mere six months’ reprieve is not good enough. As things stand, for people with muscular dystrophy and their families in the South East Coast region, from September, that is set to be the only part of the country without access to a local care and support advocate. Therefore, will the Minister agree to meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss what can be done to ensure long-term funding for that vital post, which sufferers and their families want to see continue?

Anna Soubry: The simple answer is absolutely yes. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has also raised this matter through parliamentary questions and the like. I am more than happy to have that meeting.

Vulnerable Older People

Margot James: What steps he is taking to improve the care of vulnerable older people.

Jeremy Hunt: We are taking a great deal of measures to improve services for vulnerable older people, who make up the bulk of the work the NHS does, and in particular to make sure they are always treated with dignity and respect.

Margot James: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Earlier this year the Care Quality Commission found that people with dementia end up in hospital more often, stay longer and are more likely to die there. What can he do to encourage greater provision of good-quality specialist care places for patients with dementia in the community?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Nearly 60% of people with dementia are in a care setting, but one of the tragedies is that many of them could continue to live healthily and happily at home for much longer if they were given the support that they needed. Often, however, that support does not arrive until it is too late, when the carer or family member is under too much pressure to be able to look after them. The dementia diagnosis rate at the beginning of this Parliament was less than 40%, but our objective is to get that up to two thirds by the end of the Parliament. Also, we want to ensure that a proper care plan is in place for the two thirds who are diagnosed, so that we can avoid the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

Hazel Blears: Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia published its report, “Dementia does not discriminate”, which deals particularly with the impact of dementia on people from black and minority ethnic communities. There are now 25,000 people from those communities living with dementia—far more than we expected—yet they often receive their diagnoses even later than people with dementia in the rest of the population. Will the Secretary of State fund an awareness campaign through Public Health England aimed at those communities to drive up the diagnosis rates? Will he also ensure that the clinical commissioning groups are commissioning appropriate support services in those communities so that we can provide proper services for everyone living with dementia?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate the right hon. Lady, who is a long-time campaigner on dementia issues. She has raised a really important issue, and I will certainly talk to Public Health England about raising awareness. For those groups, as for everyone, we need to ensure that there is a good care plan in place when they are diagnosed. There is some resistance in the GP community to giving a dementia diagnosis, partly because many GPs worry that not much will happen as a result. We need to ensure that there is a good plan in place, and that is particularly the case for ethnic minority communities.

Graham Stuart: Does the Secretary of State agree that areas that are grappling with the highest burdens of chronic illness and disability should receive the highest NHS allocations? Does he have any idea why the NHS Commissioning Board has rejected the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and decided instead to perpetuate the systematic underfunding of areas that serve older people?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that NHS resources must be allocated in a way that fairly reflects the need for the NHS in every area. Rurality and age are two important factors in that regard. I can reassure him that the current allocations are not set in aspic. The problem with the recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation that NHS England received before was that they would have meant increasing resources to the areas with the best health outcomes at the expense of those with the worst ones. NHS England thought that that would be inconsistent with its duty to reduce health inequalities, but it is looking at the issue this year and we all hope that it will make good progress.

Andrew Gwynne: We all know that one of the most important drivers for improving the quality of care for vulnerable and elderly patients is to ensure the adequate training and regulation of health care assistants. That is something that Labour and Sir Robert Francis QC have called for, but that the Government have so far ducked. Will the Secretary of State now accept that crucial Francis recommendation to help to drive up care standards for the elderly and the vulnerable—yes or no?

Jeremy Hunt: The reasons that Robert Francis recommended statutory regulation of health care assistants were twofold. First, he wanted to ensure that people who had been
	involved in incidents of poor care could not pop up somewhere else in the system. Secondly, he wanted to ensure that everyone had proper training. We are going to solve both those problems, but I am not convinced that a big new national database of 300,000 people is the way to do it.

South London Healthcare Trust

Heidi Alexander: What recent progress his Department has made on negotiations with acute providers on the capital and revenue costs of implementing the recommendations of the special administrator of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust.

Anna Soubry: Decisions on funding for each individual hospital are being worked through as part of the implementation planning process, in collaboration with the Department, to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Decisions need to ensure that capacity is available in the right place and that quality and safety are maintained.

Heidi Alexander: Is it true that King’s College hospital wants £109 million in capital funding alone to cover changes at the Denmark Hill site and at the Princess Royal hospital, given that in January the Secretary of State announced £73 million of additional investment for all the other hospitals in south-east London to deal with displaced patients from Lewisham? Will the Minister explain where the money is coming from? Will she also tell us whether all this will be centrally funded, or whether local commissioners will be asked to pick up the tab?

Anna Soubry: What I can say is that it will be centrally funded, but as to the other detail in the hon. Lady’s question, I will have to write to her with those answers. As ever, my door is open and I am more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.

Clinical Commissioning Groups

Barry Sheerman: What plans he has to increase the management capability of doctors elected to clinical commissioning groups.

Jeremy Hunt: Clinical commissioning groups have the freedom and autonomy to determine the skills and expertise needed to enable them to deliver improved outcomes for their local communities, and NHS England is developing an assurance framework to ensure that they all have the capacity and capability to do that.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of doctors, certainly the ones I have talked to, are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of their management capabilities to run these complex organisations? Is he worried that many of them are saying that they have to turn to private health care people to back them up and give them advice? Is that healthy in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I am absolutely aware that there a lack of clinical leadership, and when we go on to the statement later today, I am sure that we will be discussing what needs to be done to improve the quality of leadership, particularly clinical leadership. Very often the best leadership in any hospital or any commissioning group comes from clinicians, and we have much work to do to make that happen. But I do not think that that means that we should duck the challenge; we just have to get on and make sure that people have the right training and can be supported to do the job we need them to do.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State seems to be answering a different question. The question was about management training for doctors who are being put in the position, without any training and with no consultation—many are doing this against their wishes—of having to manage in a way that they have never been trained to do and are not inclined to do. Would it not be better to put in place the assurance and the training he talks about before rushing into this madcap reorganisation, which the Government did?

Jeremy Hunt: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, first, these people are not doing these jobs against their will, as they volunteered to do them? Secondly, the quality of CCGs is being assured very closely, and they are receiving a lot of support. But it is a big job because, generally speaking, we want more clinical leaders. They need support in learning management skills in order to do that job well, and across the whole NHS we need to be doing that better.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the training of clinical leaders include training in legal advice about mergers? I was shocked to see a response from Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust showing that they had already spent more than £1.5 million on legal advice about their merger, which has been prevented by the Competition Commission, and that in future they expect to spend £6 million on this scheme. Is it right that our health money should be going on legal advice?

Jeremy Hunt: No, and I am as concerned as the hon. Lady that it is difficult to push through the mergers that local commissioners want to happen. We have to operate within the framework of European law, but we are looking at what we can do to make it easier for these things to happen.

Health Tourism

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to tackle health tourism and ensure a fair system of contribution to the costs of the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: On 3 July, my Department and the Home Office launched co-ordinated consultations on a range of proposals on a new charging system for visitors and migrants in which everyone makes a fair contribution to health care. Those include making temporary migrants from outside the European economic area contribute to the cost of their health care, and introducing easier and more practical ways for the NHS to identify and charge those not entitled to free health care.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend and support the new visa fee proposal for non-EU foreign nationals who come here and receive NHS treatment. May we also have an assurance that the treatment of EU nationals will be properly audited in the NHS, so that those costs can be recovered through the European health insurance card scheme?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that we estimate that we collect less than half the money for which we invoice for “overseas operations” and we identify fewer than half the people who should be invoiced in the first place—that applies in respect of those from inside the EU as well as from outside the EU. We can get refunded for the care we give EU nationals if we are sensible about collecting this money and we put those systems in place. Given the pressures in the NHS, we are absolutely determined to make sure we do so.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Last year health tourism cost the NHS £24 million—that was in one year alone. He has outlined the new system coming in, but will he say how it will be administered? Many of us feel that it might not be as easy to do in practice as it is on paper.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If this is to work, we need a slick system that is easy for hospitals to operate. We have done this in another area, as the NHS successfully and seamlessly invoices insurance companies for the costs of coping with road traffic accidents. At the moment, however, if hospitals declare that someone is chargeable for their NHS care, they do not get paid by the NHS for that care, meaning that they have to collect the money themselves from overseas, so the incentives for hospitals are wrong and we need to sort them out.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the Government’s initiatives to tackle health tourism, but what is being done to help hospitals on the front line, such as Bournemouth hospital, better to identify chargeable visitors?

Jeremy Hunt: We are considering whether something can be done with the NHS number. At the moment, people can visit any GP and, completely legally—whether or not they are entitled to NHS care—get an NHS number. That number can then become a passport that can be used throughout the system, so we are examining whether there is a way of giving people either a temporary NHS number, or a different NHS number, that can be tracked through the system so that if they undergo complex medical care that is chargeable, we are able to trace that and collect the money from them.

Stephen McCabe: If we are to make this work, do not we need a clearer idea about the real cost? Is it the £200 million that the Secretary of State has been quoted as using, the £10 million suggested by the Prime Minister, or the £33 million that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has cited in a parliamentary written answer?

Jeremy Hunt: The truth is that we do not know the cost, which is why we are carrying out an independent audit this summer. The £12 million figure is the amount written off by the NHS each year because of unpaid overseas invoices, but many people think that the costs are much greater. We want an answer for the hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House, so we are carrying out that independent audit and we will publish the results later in the autumn.

Topical Questions

Kate Green: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the whole House will want to recognise the fact that this month marks the 65th anniversary of the NHS. This country blazed a trail by introducing universal health care coverage in 1948, and the NHS remains the single biggest reason why most people are proud to be British. The whole House will want to note that whatever failings are being exposed by a new era of transparency in NHS care, the overwhelming majority of doctors, nurses, health care assistants and managers do a remarkable job, working incredibly long hours for the benefit of us and our families, and we salute them for all they do.

Kate Green: When changes were made at Lewisham hospital, the Secretary of State refused to meet local campaigners. Following his announcement last week about changes to services at Trafford general hospital, local campaigners from Trafford would like to know if he is prepared to meet them.

Jeremy Hunt: That is not quite a fair representation of what happened in the case of Lewisham, or indeed for Trafford, because I agreed to meet all local MPs regarding Lewisham. These things are carefully constrained by what is legally possible so as to be fair to all sides, but I met all Lewisham MPs. As the hon. Lady knows, I have agreed to meet her—I think that we are meeting later this afternoon—and I am sure that she will express the concerns of campaigners in Trafford.

David Rutley: Integrating health and social care is an especially important priority in areas with the fastest-ageing populations. With that in mind, do Ministers agree that it is vital to support joined-up initiatives such as Caring Together in north-east Cheshire, which involves the local clinical commissioning group, council and NHS trust?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight such initiatives. That was why the Government, as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, set up health and wellbeing boards, which bring together housing providers, the NHS, the third sector and social care locally so that they can look at how to improve and better integrate personalised care, especially for the frail elderly.

Yasmin Qureshi: In the 1960s and 1970s, the drug primodos was given to pregnant women, resulting in serious birth defects in
	thousands of babies, who are now adults in their 40s. The then Committee on the Safety of Medicines failed to act in time, the scientist at Schering, the drug manufacturing company, accepted subsequently that he had made up his research, and the solicitor Peter Todd has described the events as the biggest medical and legal cover-up of the 20th century. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the victims of primodos so that we can present our evidence on what has happened?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that when we have scientific and clinical data, they must be used responsibly, as the MMR scandal also indicated. Of course I would be delighted to meet her to talk through this matter further.

Stephen Metcalfe: In advance of the publication of the Keogh report later today, and following the revelations that Basildon hospital had one of the highest standard mortality rates following catastrophic failures, will my right hon. Friend assure the House and my constituents that he will support the new management regime in its attempts to improve the quality of care? Will he also tell the House if he found any evidence of a systematic attempt by the previous Prime Minister and the previous Government to cover up figures—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not abuse topical questions to ask two questions, and he should be asking not about the policies of the previous Government, but about the policies of the present Government, on which I know the Secretary of State will briefly reply. We are grateful.

Jeremy Hunt: We will, of course, give every support to the management at Basildon to turn around their hospitals. The wonders of modern technology have informed us that the shadow Health Secretary was wrong to say that there has been a decline in nursing numbers in Basildon: they have actually gone up by nearly 100 since the last election.

Sarah Champion: The Francis report recommended that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence draw up minimum safe staffing levels that would be policed by the Care Quality Commission. It stated that NICE should develop
	“evidence-based tools for establishing”
	the staffing needs of each service in the NHS which is likely to be required
	“as a minimum in terms of staff numbers and skill mix.”
	Will the Minister tell us when the Government will act on this and all the recommendations in the report?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Lady heard the exchange earlier, she will know that what Robert Francis was recommending was evidence-based tools, not a national minimum staffing level. The reason for that is that the number of nurses needed varies from hospital to hospital and ward to ward. We need to make sure that that happens. In the best hospitals it already does. The system that we have—this was supported by the shadow Health Secretary in his evidence to the Francis review—is not one where the Secretary of State sits behind his desk and dictates the number of nurses required in every hospital. If we did
	that, we would not be able to run the NHS properly, but we need to make sure that there are proper standards in place, which is why we have a chief inspector of hospitals to make sure that that happens.

Stuart Andrew: It is right that clinicians should speak out about safety in our hospitals, but does my right hon. Friend agree that now is probably not the right time for clinicians to be speculating in the national media about the safety at Leeds heart unit, given that the Department has yet to release the second phase of the review, as this endless speculation is causing great anxiety to already worried parents?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has campaigned very honourably and sensibly for children’s heart services at Leeds. This is not a time for speculation. We will announce this month what the new process will be for resolving Safe and Sustainable. He and I both want this to happen as quickly as possible to remove that uncertainty. Also, we have to find a way of making sure that the data are solid and that we can trust them.

Keith Vaz: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Abbey primary school on becoming the first “silver star” school in Leicester for banning sugary drinks and for promoting healthy eating and exercise? Does he agree that this is the best way of preventing diabetes and obesity in later life?

Anna Soubry: Absolutely. I would be delighted to come along and visit the school. May I give full credit to the right hon. Gentleman for his campaign and to the Silver Star charity, which does great work? That is why it is so right that we put public health back in local authorities, where it should always have been and where it was, historically. This sort of local action is very much the way forward, so I congratulate the school and the right hon. Gentleman again.

Andrew George: Further to the question raised by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I have met the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) regarding safe staffing levels and I provided a substantial file of evidence on behalf of the Florence Nightingale Foundation in support of its 1:8 registered nurse to patient ratio. What part of that evidence are Ministers unconvinced by?

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman refers is very persuasive, but I am sure he would agree that a ratio such as 1:8 cannot be applied uniformly across his local hospital or across all local hospitals. It can vary from day to day, depending on the level of illness and the age of the people going into particular wards. The best hospitals have computer models that change the numbers of nurses operating in different wards on a daily basis. Other hospitals do not do that, except on a quarterly basis. That is the change that we need to make.

Rosie Cooper: Does the Secretary of State believe that making data on individual consultants public is pointless if hospitals
	are using informal mechanisms to frustrate patient choice, such as having a team of specialist nurses decide which consultant a patient is referred to? Will he reinforce patient choice and dissuade hospitals from doing that?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we need more transparency in data and that patients have a right to know about the quality of surgical care, but it is also right that we need to look at that carefully across the different surgical specialties, and particularly at the different criteria that might also impact upon good care and good health care outcomes, particularly in oncology.

Andrew Stephenson: Two-year-old Oliver Rushton in my constituency has cerebral palsy and needs a selective dorsal rhizotomy if he is to be able to walk or stand on his own. Unfortunately, after considerable delay, Oliver’s request for NHS treatment has been turned down. He is now getting the treatment, but only after an incredible fundraising effort from his parents, who have personally raised £40,000 to pay for it. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the case?

Daniel Poulter: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that case and the commissioning arrangements for the procedure, and indeed other treatment for patients with cerebral palsy.

Meg Munn: The guidance that the Government have produced on transferring funds from the NHS to local authority social care makes it clear that the money can be used to plug gaps in social care caused by cuts. Does that not just mean that the local authorities that are under most pressure because they have had the biggest cuts will not be in a position to develop the integrated health and care services that we would all like to see?

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, because the conditions for accessing that £3.8 billion fund are absolutely clear. Local authorities will not be able to access it unless they can promise to maintain services at their current levels. They are allowed to make financial efficiencies, as is the NHS, and everyone needs to look at that, but not if it means a deterioration in services.

Jeremy Lefroy: Being able to be visited frequently by one’s loved ones is a vital part of improving care for vulnerable older people in acute settings. How is closeness to home being taken into account in any service changes proposed by Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable way he sticks up for his constituents in Stafford in incredibly difficult circumstances. I think that the whole House recognises what he has done. Secondly, in answer to his question, there is always a balance to be found, because we all recognise that, all things being equal, people would rather be treated nearer to where they live for exactly the reasons he gave. We also need to ensure that people get the best care when they arrive at hospital, which is why it is very important to go through these difficult processes to work out where that balance lies.

Kevin Barron: Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing problems there are in A and E because of alcohol? If so, will he tell us what he is going to do about it?

Jeremy Hunt: There are problems, particularly in large cities and at weekends. In fact, in the case of the reorganisation of services at Trafford general hospital, one of the things that we can invest in as a result is mental health facilities in neighbouring A and Es so that people have better access to the services they need.

Tessa Munt: The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of Nadejah, the face of the Teenage Cancer Trust, who at the age of 23 has been refused the CyberKnife cancer treatment that could save her life. Her mother Michelle is here today. Will he intervene so that this young woman gets the treatment that her consultant, Professor Hochhauser, recommends, and will he meet Nadejah’s mother and me so that we can work together to unblock the funding so that she can get the treatment she so desperately needs?

Anna Soubry: I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and the family but, as she knows, this is a treatment that we have talked about endlessly, and we have had many meetings, which I am more than happy to continue to have with her.

Meg Hillier: Since 2010, thousands of NHS staff have left the NHS with big, fat redundancy cheques, only to go through the revolving door and get new jobs in the NHS, often months later. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much has been spent on redundancy payments and whether he regrets that waste of NHS money?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady asks that question as if that kind of thing never happened under Labour. The answer is that it is not acceptable, which is why we are changing the rules to ensure that people cannot get payoffs and then walk straight into another NHS job. The other answer is that the reorganisation that she criticises means that we have put more money on the front line, including for 6,000 more doctors, which I think was the right thing to do.

Charlotte Leslie: Does the Secretary of State agree it is a scandal that those, such as Gary Walker, Amanda Pollard and Kim Holt, who have exposed the horrors buried in our NHS have either been fired or do not have jobs, but those who are heavily implicated in such cases, such as Barbara Hakin—about whom I have written to the Secretary of State—David Nicholson, and others, still do?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on issues of accountability, and I agree with her basic case, even if I do not agree with her about all the individuals she mentioned. One issue that will arise during today’s statement is that of how people are held accountable. That has been missing in our NHS, and we must put it right.

Grahame Morris: There has been much talk about action plans and I am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon.
	Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), is not in his place. Is the Health Secretary aware that Mencap has expressed concerns that the Government’s response to the “Six Lives” progress report by the Department of Health does not set goals or time scales for tackling the issues highlighted in that report?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the care services Minister would have liked to be here but he is at his son’s graduation today. I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s question and ensure that he receives a full response.

Richard Fuller: At the end of this month, the East of England Multi-Professional Deanery will remove junior doctors in paediatric services from Bedford hospital. That will reduce paediatric services, which will obviously cause major concerns for families with children in Bedford and Kempston and north Bedfordshire. Will my right hon. Friend join me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in calling for an open and independent inquiry into why clinical supervisory failures continued at Bedford hospital and were not addressed, and into the terrible consequences that resulted from that?

Daniel Poulter: I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased that Health Education England, supported by the General Medical Council, took such rapid action to address concerns over patient safety and the supervision of junior doctors at his hospital. It is right that a rapid action plan has been brought in by local health care commissioners and Health Education England, in order to support that, put in place the right supervision for medical staff, and ensure we put things right as quickly as possible.

John Cryer: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), Ministers often—quite rightly—mention the importance of whistleblowers, so why have the Government weakened protection for whistleblowers through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013?

Jeremy Hunt: We are strengthening protection for whistleblowers and are going much further by creating a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS, where people are not bullied if they speak out about poor care.

Adrian Sanders: Torbay is often held up as a model for an integrated care service, but two important services are not fully integrated—mental health care and children’s services. Will the Government encourage the incorporation of all services into a fully integrated health care system?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point and the heart of what he says is that integrated, joined-up care is most important for those who are regular users of the NHS. Children with complex needs or people with mental health conditions that can improve but not necessarily be cured can really benefit from an integrated approach. I salute what Torbay has done in blazing a trail. We are learning from that and hope that such a process will be rolled out in every part of the country as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but we must now move on.

Northern Ireland

Theresa Villiers: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about riots in Northern Ireland. I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning that shameful violence and in expressing our profound sympathy and support for police officers who have been injured. It is also a matter of the gravest concern that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was knocked unconscious as he tried to calm the situation on the streets of his constituency. I am certain that I speak for everyone here in wishing him well for a speedy recovery, and we all look forward to welcoming him back to his customary place very soon.
	On Friday evening, following the annual 12 July parades, around 5,000 people gathered to protest against the Parades Commission determination not to allow three Orange lodges to return home past the nationalist Ardoyne area. This has been the scene of serious disorder in recent years, including shots fired at police by dissident republicans. Violence erupted as the crowd reached the police line on Woodvale road, preventing access to the route past the Ardoyne shop fronts. This has been followed by further disturbances and rioting on each night since then, mainly in the Woodvale parade/Twaddell avenue area, but also in the Newtownards road in east Belfast, Mount Vernon in north Belfast, Rathcoole in Newtownabbey, Portadown, and Ballyclare.
	During these disturbances the police have come under attack from a variety of weapons, including fireworks, petrol bombs, bottles, stones, bits of masonry, iron bars and ceremonial swords. Last night, four blast bombs were thrown at police officers in east Belfast, as well as a pipe bomb improvised explosive device from Brompton park in the Ardoyne. Water cannon and AEP—attenuated energy projectile—plastic bullet rounds have been discharged on four successive nights, and 71 police officers have been injured. I am well aware of the anger felt by many people over the Parades Commission determination in relation to Ardoyne, but however strongly people feel, there can be absolutely no justification or excuse for the disgraceful behaviour we have seen in recent days. Attacks on the police are wholly unacceptable, and I condemn them without hesitation or reservation. It is also utterly disgraceful that the right hon. Member for Belfast North found himself, too, the victim of this violence.
	There has been talk of attacks on British identity and culture in Northern Ireland. Well, the sort of behaviour that has been taking place in north Belfast does nothing to promote “Britishness” or the pro-Union cause; rather, it undermines it in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, it is hard to think of anything less British and less patriotic than wrapping yourself in a Union flag and going out to attack the people who are there to maintain the rule of law and protect the whole community.
	So now it is the responsibility of everyone with influence, including the Orange Order, community leaders and politicians, to do all we can to defuse tensions and calm the situation. We need temperate language over the coming days. I am afraid that the Orange Order needs to reflect carefully on its role in encouraging mass protests on Friday in a highly volatile situation without the
	careful planning, stewarding and engagement with the police that is so important for keeping people safe when big crowds gather together. While the Orange Order’s announcement of the suspension of its protests was welcome, it is now time for it to call them off completely.
	I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland over recent days. The officers have demonstrated fortitude, determination and courage in defending the rule of law. They put their own safety on the line in the face of violent attacks, and they deserve our utmost praise, support and thanks, as do the police officers from Great Britain who provided mutual aid support. I would like to commend the leadership of Chief Constable Matt Baggott and Justice Minister David Ford. I know that meticulous planning took place to ensure that everything possible was done to try to keep people safe over the weekend of 12 July, including bringing approximately 1,000 mutual aid officers from Great Britain.
	Of the 4,000 or so parades that take place annually in Northern Ireland, the vast majority pass off without major problems, including hundreds on 12 July. But any rioting is unacceptable, not least because it undermines efforts to secure economic recovery for Northern Ireland and because it makes competing in the global race for jobs and investment that much more difficult.
	The way forward has to be through dialogue to find sustainable local solutions to contentious parades, as has been the case, for example, in Derry/Londonderry. I welcomed the talks that took place between members of the Orange Order and Ardoyne residents before the Parades Commission determination. I know how difficult this will be after what has happened, but I believe it is vital that that local dialogue continues. I also welcome the inclusion of parading in the remit of the Executive’s all-party working group and the appointment of the distinguished US former envoy to Northern Ireland, Richard Haass, to chair it. The Government have always made it clear that we are open to a devolved solution if one can be found, but in the meantime we will not tolerate lawlessness on the streets of Belfast any more than we would in any other UK city.
	Last week in this Chamber, issues were raised regarding my powers in relation to Parades Commission determinations. Those powers are set out in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Section 9 states that I can review a determination made by the Parades Commission only following a request by the Chief Constable. The reason he has not made such a request is that at all times he has been confident that the officers under his command can police the situation. I fully share that confidence.
	To those on the streets over recent days taking part in this violence, I say this: so far 60 arrests have been made and emergency courts were sitting at Laganside on Sunday to accelerate the criminal justice process, but that is just the start. No stone will be left unturned in building the case needed for more arrests and more criminal convictions. Those who engage in so-called recreational rioting and attacks on police officers can expect to face the full force of the law.
	I am confident that for some that will mean that the next 12 July holiday will be spent not out in the sunshine following the parades, but locked up in prison living with the consequences of the crimes they have committed. I commend this statement to the House.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for her usual courtesy in giving me advance sight of her statement. I also thank her and her officials for keeping me and my office updated over the course of the weekend. That was very much appreciated and in the best traditions of bipartisanship.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is right that the House has the opportunity to discuss these important matters.
	I unequivocally condemn the violence that has taken place in Belfast over the past number of days and nights. There is no justification for it. The disgraceful attacks on the police have resulted in dozens of injuries, and the very deliberate attempt to murder officers by throwing blast bombs at them last night was shameful. It is also a matter of huge regret and concern that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was also hurt. We wish him well.
	I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the PSNI and its colleagues from other UK forces for their bravery and determination in upholding the law. Will she update us on the status of injured officers? Are any still receiving treatment? How many have returned to duty? Will she also tell us how many are PSNI officers and how many are from other UK forces? Is she able to say how many mutual aid officers are still undertaking duties in Northern Ireland, and how long she expects that to continue?
	We know that the costs of policing large-scale public order incidents can be high. Does the Secretary of State have an estimate of how much the policing operations have cost to date, and who will meet that cost? Will it be her Department, the Department of Justice or a combination of the two?
	There is always concern at the involvement of paramilitaries in or on the margins of contentious parades and protests. Has the Secretary of State looked at who was involved and who is being arrested? Is there any indication that loyalist paramilitaries or dissident republicans have organised or taken part in any of the violence?
	The origins of the appalling scenes we have witnessed lie in a dispute about parading. We have been here before. Does the Secretary of State agree that meaningful dialogue and working towards local agreement is the key to finding a solution? It has worked well in other places, as she has said. The Orange Order held a peaceful, enjoyable and colourful celebration of 12 July as part of the UK city of culture celebrations in Derry/Londonderry. That was able to happen because of dialogue and communication between neighbours in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good will.
	Will the Secretary of State update the House on what discussions she has had with the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Orange Order, residents’ associations, and local political and civic representatives over the weekend? Does she agree that, as Secretary of State, she has an important role to play in having further discussions over the coming weeks in north and east Belfast? As well as condemning the violence that has already taken place, does the Secretary of State agree that we need to work together to ensure it ends and does not occur in the future and to address some of the causes of these problems?
	My view is that the British and Irish Governments still have a hugely significant role to play in helping to resolve all these issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that they should both be involved in the talks convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which are being facilitated by Richard Haass? Will she confirm that the Northern Ireland Office is working with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on that, and has she discussed it, or will she discuss it, with the Tanaiste?
	In conclusion, it is crucial to bring people together to look at what needs to happen now to prevent a repeat of what has happened over the weekend, when a disagreement that was not addressed led to significant tensions between communities and ended in unacceptable violence. What part can the Secretary of State play in the discussions that need to take place?
	The main message that I and, I think, the House want to send is this: we encourage all those who are working to find a solution to these matters to keep going, to keep talking and not to give up. I say to those who are involved in parading and protesting, Unionist and nationalist, that respecting the law, respecting their neighbour and respecting the wishes of people right across the community to live in peace is the only way forward. That has been done in other places across Northern Ireland and it can be done in Belfast.

Theresa Villiers: I very much welcome the comments of the shadow Secretary of State and particularly his joining me in condemning the violence. He is right to identify some of the attacks as deliberate attempts to murder police officers, which is utterly unacceptable and shocking. I will run through his long list of questions.
	On the gravity of the injuries, the last update that I received was that overall, the injuries were not serious, although some police officers have been hospitalised. All those who were hospitalised as a result of the riots on 12 July were released from hospital fairly soon afterwards. I am not quite sure of the position on all the injuries that occurred last night, but my impression from my conversation with the Chief Constable this morning is that, thankfully, the injuries are again not of a serious nature. On the distribution of the injuries between mutual aid officers and PSNI officers, the figure for mutual aid officers over the weekend was two. Again, it is not clear whether any mutual aid officers were among those who were injured last night.
	On the number of mutual aid officers, about 1,000 have been deployed over the past few days. Some will be going home and fresh mutual aid officers will be coming to Northern Ireland to provide assistance, so the numbers are relatively flexible. The Chief Constable is ensuring that he has the necessary resources.
	The cost of the policing operation falls on the Department of Justice. Another damaging consequence of the events of recent days is that they put more pressure on police budgets.
	The PSNI will naturally investigate what evidence there is of the involvement of the paramilitaries and assess who needs to be arrested. There has been a claim of responsibility from Oglaigh na hEireann in relation to the pipe bomb improvised explosive device that was thrown from the Ardoyne at police officers.
	I agree that meaningful dialogue is the way forward. I have had a range of conversations on parading matters over recent months with residents’ groups, the Orange Order, the First and Deputy First Ministers, and other leading members of Northern Ireland’s political establishment. The Northern Ireland Office also sponsored a conference at Cardiff to promote dialogue and to keep people in touch with the police and one another in an attempt to defuse tensions in such situations.
	I have had a number of conversations with the Tanaiste about the current situation and about a way forward, for example through the Richard Haass working group. I look forward to supporting the Executive in respect of the work of that group in whatever way they request.

Laurence Robertson: I condemn the violence of the past few nights, for which, as the Secretary of State has said, there can be no excuse. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of the PSNI who risk their lives every day to try to keep the peace. I extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), whom I saw on the morning of 12 July at the Ardoyne. He was doing his best to maintain peace and calm in that area when there was something of a difficult situation, seemingly caused by the determination of the Parades Commission.
	I was at several other places in Belfast on Thursday night and on Friday. With the exception of the Ardoyne in the morning, among the thousands of people I saw celebrating, there was not a single problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that the trouble has been caused by a very few people who were determined to cause trouble from the outset? Does she agree that those people in no way represent the good and decent people of Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that we should in no way judge the people of Northern Ireland by the actions of the disgraceful minority who have brought violence to its streets. I acknowledge that many thousands of people on the streets on 12 July were there just to celebrate a cultural event. They caused no problems whatever and were not remotely involved in the violence that followed later in the evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), I too wish a full and speedy recovery to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I think I speak for colleagues in saying that we look forward to welcoming him back to his place before very long.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Thank you for those kind words, Mr Speaker. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) will have heard them as he recovers this afternoon. I also thank the Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and all hon. Members who have spoken to me and my colleagues in recent days for their kind comments. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will be back with us before long.
	We on this side of the House unequivocally condemn the violence that has occurred in recent days, and in the past, on the whole issue of parades. No violence can be justified in these circumstances. We stand firmly for the rule of law. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the rule of law is applied fairly and impartially, and that whether it is a loyalist rioter or a Sinn Fein MLA obstructing the police in the course of their duty, the law must be applied equally, fairly and impartially?
	We pay tribute to the police officers who have been injured and wish them a speedy recovery. We support the police, just as we support the rule of law. We do, however, have issues regarding the consistent lack of intervention by the police in the Short Strand area of east Belfast, where they have failed to protect people lawfully processing on the public highway. We need to examine why adequate protection is not afforded to those parading peacefully and lawfully. That is not, in any sense, to condone violence resulting from people being put under attack.
	We have grave concerns about the operation of the Parades Commission. There is no doubt that the clear perception among many people in Northern Ireland is that the decision on the Ardoyne parade rewarded the violence of the previous year, to which the Secretary of State alluded in her remarks. That violence included dissident republicans opening fire on the police in the Ardoyne, and a huge of amount of petrol bombs and other devices being thrown at the police. We must not have a situation, in any circumstances, where violence is seen to be rewarded.
	Finally, on the all-party working group, in which I have been asked to participate on behalf of my party, we are committed to finding ways forward on all of these contentious issues, including parades. However, may I say to the Secretary of State that if a shared future is to mean anything, it has to include shared space? If we have a situation in Northern Ireland where there are no-go areas, where one side of the community is not welcome, that is not a shared future and not shared space.

Theresa Villiers: I reiterate my sympathies to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, who was doing such brave work to try to look after his constituents and found himself the victim of unacceptable violence. Of course I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) that the rule of law should be applied impartially, and I am absolutely convinced that the PSNI does that. I note his comments on what he perceives as the handling of the Short Strand area. Again, I hope I can provide reassurance that proportionality and fairness is at the heart of everything the PSNI does, whether in Short Strand or elsewhere. I note his comments on the Parades Commission. As I said, I understand the concerns about its decision, and I know that the debate continues on the future of the Parades Commission. I think the way forward to resolve these problems is through local dialogue, but channelling efforts, enthusiasm and energy into looking at options for future reform through the Richard Haass working group is also an important way forward. I also agree that in a shared future we need shared space. We need to find a way to ensure that different traditions can be celebrated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

Bob Stewart: Obviously, and thankfully, the Army was not called in to support the PSNI. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there remains an infantry unit in theatre that could do such a role if required?

Theresa Villiers: I believe that it is inconceivable that we would see the Army back on the streets of Northern Ireland dealing with public order issues.

Peter Hain: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s statement? Anybody who has done her job will know its difficulties. However, may I press her to be more directly engaged, despite the meetings she has had, with the different groups that are very sensitive on this issue: from the Orange Order to republican groups, dissident groups and loyalist groups? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland, fairly or unfairly, that she is not rolling up her sleeves enough and getting people around the table. Is the Parades Commission perhaps being too aloof and legalistic in the way it is proceeding? It, too, needs to get into the negotiation business and not simply make determinations.

Theresa Villiers: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been engaged in a whole range of discussions with the Orange Order, residents’ associations and a long list of people involved in these matters. I got the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, the PSNI and the Parades Commission around the table to talk about these issues. As far I am aware, that has never happened before. All of that took place in the months running up to 12 July —there was not a last-minute series of meetings immediately before the parades that has sometimes happened in the past. I am always keen to roll up my sleeves to get involved and do whatever I can. The reality is that this remains an extremely difficult problem to resolve, but I will be doing my very best, working with Northern Ireland politicians.

Stephen Lloyd: I would also like to express my support and appreciation for the Secretary of State’s statement, and my party’s concern for the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I would like to make two points. First, the police have been through a brutal time over the weekend. As usual, the PSNI has performed absolutely superbly and I wish to express my party’s support for the courage and behaviour of the police. Secondly—the Secretary of State alluded to this in her statement—have the Government made a formal point to the relevant Orange Order to ask whether it sincerely feels in its heart that it helped or hindered events over the weekend?

Theresa Villiers: I hope that the Orange Order is reflecting on the scenes of violence—they do not help any cause. They certainly do not assist the cause of cultural tolerance, and they certainly do not make it easy to resolve the matter next year in a way that is acceptable to all sides.

Margaret Ritchie: In condemning the violence right across Belfast and in other parts of Northern Ireland, and in extending best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), may I ask the Secretary of State whether she agrees that the responsibility for the violence and disorder lies with the perpetrators rather than the lawful
	authority of the Parades Commission? Does she further agree that the violence stems from anger, and that that anger stems from rhetoric used by certain members of the loyal orders and certain members of the Unionist parties? Will she, along with me, urge them to desist from making such comments, so that a shared society can be built throughout Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that the people responsible for the violence are the perpetrators: the people chucking petrol bombs and attacking the police in this disgraceful way. It is important that, in the coming days, all of us who care about Northern Ireland seek to calm the situation and that a lead be given by the Orange Order. Northern Ireland’s political leadership has made it clear that it wants the situation calmed and that it condemns the violence, so I hope that the people on the streets will heed that call and realise that the violence is hugely damaging to Northern Ireland and does not support any cause. It is time for the debate about parades to come off the streets and to be channelled into a political process.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Secretary of State believe that the level of disorder and the number of injuries to police officers would have been greater had it not been for the effective deployment of water cannon? Given that hundreds of police officers from Great Britain have now seen how this equipment can be effectively deployed, will she share her assessment of its use with the Home Secretary, so that water cannon can be deployed in Great Britain to deal with future public order disturbances on the mainland?

Theresa Villiers: I am inclined to agree that without the ability to deploy water cannon, there could have been more injuries to police officers. I am certainly happy to share with the Home Secretary the experience in Northern Ireland of deploying water cannon, if she would like me to do that.

Naomi Long: I join the Secretary of State in condemning those engaged in violence, whether in seeking to breach a determination or in attacking lawful parades, thereby providing a further challenge to the rule of law and causing further damage to Northern Ireland’s reputation. I also extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
	My primary concern is both for my constituents living in the areas affected—on the Newtonards road and in the Short Strand—whose lives are put at risk, who are terrified in their homes and whose neighbourhoods are left like war zones in the aftermath of these riots, and for the police who must protect the public and uphold the law in difficult circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree that until such time as an agreement on an alternative to the Parades Commission is agreed by all parties in Northern Ireland, that body remains the lawful authority in these matters and that its rulings must be upheld—no ifs, no buts—if law and order is not to be undermined more generally?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority; its determinations must be obeyed and the rule of law must be respected. Visiting her constituency, I saw the devastating impact that disorder had during the flags
	protest, and I know that the continuation of violence over recent days is deeply depressing for her constituents, not least for the businesses whose trade is disrupted.

Nigel Mills: While not condoning the violence over the weekend, does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a fear that the Parades Commission ruling placed the police in an impossible situation, having to police an unpoliceable order, and that with hindsight it might have been better to use the mechanism in place for exceptional circumstances to try to find a solution for the march that was acceptable to all sides?

Theresa Villiers: As I said in my statement, the PSNI was confident at all times that it could police whatever determination the Parades Commission made, and in those circumstances it was not appropriate and my powers to intervene were not triggered.

Gregory Campbell: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and other hon. Members for their best wishes, which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
	The Secretary of State has indicated the reprehensible nature of the violence and the attacks on police and property, which we all condemn outright and without reservation. She must now ensure that comprehensive discussions take place immediately—not next May or June, but immediately—to resolve all outstanding parades involving protests and violence. She also needs to engage with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that marginalised and embittered communities see more investment and jobs in their areas so that they do not get caught up in violence.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that comprehensive discussions are needed on issues such as parading, which is why I welcomed the establishment of the Haass group. As I said, I am happy to help in whatever way I can, and yes I am working closely with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the kind of economic measures needed to boost the economy in Northern Ireland, including through our economic package, which I hope will help the people in those deprived communities.

David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes it more difficult for law enforcement agencies if parade routes are changed at short notice? We need the maximum possible notice.

Theresa Villiers: Certainly, for those organising big events, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, advance planning is crucial to keeping people safe.

Paul Goggins: The Secretary of State has made several references to the all-party talks under Richard Haass looking into a range of contentious issues, including parading. Will she take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of all those involved, including the Orange Order, engaging in a serious search for solutions, not simply blocking proposals, as happened after the Hillsborough Castle agreement?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I will. It is important that the loyal orders, including the Orange Order and the Royal Black Institution, engage. As well as the Richard Haass process, the Cardiff process is continuing, following on from the conference sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office, as a way to try and defuse tensions and reduce the risk of violence occurring at individual parades.

Andrew Stephenson: It is worth remembering, and respecting the fact, that in the main Orangemen and women do not come out to annoy Catholics and that the majority of parades over the weekend, including the one that I observed, passed without incident. It is clear, however, that parades remain the rawest of issues and that the scenes in Belfast were an utter disgrace. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that about 1,000 officers from England, Wales and Scotland were involved over the weekend. Can she confirm that the same number, and more, remain available to assist if trouble flares up again in the coming days?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that conversations about our mutual aid presence in Northern Ireland are continuing, and the Chief Constable is confident that he can secure the mutual aid resources he will need over the coming days.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which I regret she had to make, and commend the comments from the shadow Secretary of State.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is rent-a-rant leadership, people cannot escape responsibility for rent-a-mob violence? She referred, rightly, to the positive example on Friday of the Orange Order having its parade in the city of Derry, where it was accepted and respected, but does she understand that the dialogue model used there did not deliver immediately but took purpose and patience? Wider civic and commercial interests were able—and often required—to weigh in to ensure a wider perspective. Will she encourage the Haass dialogue to provide a channel for those wider civic and commercial interests as well?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to do that. The business community made it clear that it wanted a peaceful 12 July weekend. I continue to encourage the business community to engage on these matters for the same reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlines: because they played such a positive role in Derry/Londonderry. I also agree that a sustainable local solution will not be found in just a few days, but will require further work. I hope that the Orange Order and the residents will continue the conversation they started; at the time, both sides said it was positive.

David Simpson: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in condemning the violence. The Secretary of State mentioned community engagement. She will know that in my constituency the Orange Order stages a weekly protest—and has done for 13 years —because the residents of the Garvaghy road will not engage on trying to resolve the issue. Community engagement is one of the big problems; that cannot be allowed to continue.

Theresa Villiers: It is important for both sides to engage, certainly in relation to the Ardoyne. I hope that the resident group and the loyal orders will be willing to continue the conversation.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State will know that last year the Parades Commission allowed the Orange Lodges to return through the Ardoyne in buses, but that they were attacked and shots were fired. No statement was made in the House and the genuine perception was that the violence was rewarded, because this year the Orange Lodges were not allowed to follow the same route. Does she share my concern about the make-up and working of the Parades Commission? Is it not time to face reality—it is not working? There must be a different way of doing this; certainly, the Parades Commission is not the answer.

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, I am aware of the concern felt about the determination, but it has the force of law. Determinations have to be respected, regardless of people’s view of the Parades Commission and the way decisions are taken. However, I am also clear that I am open to reform of the way those decisions are taken if local consensus can be achieved. I look forward to working with the Executive on those matters when the Haass group starts its work.

Kevin Brennan: In many ways, it was appropriate that the conference was held in Cardiff, given that anyone who has visited Belfast and Cardiff will know the similarities, in terms of maritime history, architecture and the friendly nature of all the people in both cities. Will the Secretary of State recommit to the statement that came out of the party conference, which said:
	“We commit to resolve our differences through dialogue and non-violent means, underpinned by the principles of equality, inclusiveness, respect for difference, and non-discrimination”?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I am entirely happy to associate myself with that statement, and I hope that we hear that message coming out clearly from across Northern Ireland’s political and civic leadership over the coming days.

Hospital Mortality Rates

Jeremy Hunt: I would like to make a statement about Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of hospitals with high mortality rates, which is being published today.
	Let me start by saying that in the health service’s 65th year, this Government are deeply proud of our NHS. We salute the doctors, nurses and other professionals, who have never worked harder to look after each and every one of us at our most vulnerable. We recognise that the problems identified today are not typical of the whole NHS or of the care given by many wonderful NHS staff; but those staff are the ones who are most betrayed when we ignore or pass over poor care. The last Government left the NHS with a system that covered up weak hospital leadership—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. As is the normal practice, right hon. and hon. Members can expect extensive questions—as can the Secretary of State—but the statement must be heard.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The last Government also failed to prioritise compassionate care. The system’s reputation—[Interruption.] This is uncomfortable for hon. Members. The system’s reputation mattered more than individual patients; targets mattered more than people. We owe it to the 3 million people who use the NHS every week to tackle and confront abuse, incompetence and weak leadership head-on.
	Following the Francis report into the tragedy at Mid Staffs, the Prime Minister asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, to conduct a series —Interruption.] I know they tried to shout down whistleblowers such as Julie Bailey, but we are not going to let that happen here. The Prime Minister asked Professor Keogh to conduct a series of “deep-dive” reviews of other hospitals with worrying mortality rates. No statistics are perfect, but mortality rates suggest that since 2005, thousands more people may have died than would normally be expected at the 14 trusts reviewed by Sir Bruce.
	Worryingly, in half those trusts, the Care Quality Commission—the regulator specifically responsible for patient safety and care—failed to spot any real cause for concern, rating them as “compliant” with basic standards. Each of those trusts has seen substantial changes to its management since 2010, including a new chief executive or chair at nine of the 14. However, although some have improved, failure or mediocrity is so deeply entrenched at others that they have continued to decline, making the additional measures I am announcing today necessary.
	This time, the process was thorough, expert-led and consisted of planned, unannounced and out-of-hours visits, placing particular weight on the views of staff and patients. Where failures were found that presented an immediate risk to patients, they were confronted straight away, rather than waiting until the report was finished. We will be publishing all the reports today, alongside unedited video footage of the review panel’s conclusions—all of which I am placing in the Library. Today I will also set out the actions the Government are taking to deal with the issues raised. I would also like to
	record my sincere thanks to Sir Bruce and his team for doing an extremely difficult job very thoroughly and rapidly.
	Sir Bruce judged that none of the 14 hospitals is providing a consistently high quality of care to patients, with some very concerning examples of poor practice. He identified patterns across many of them, including professional and geographic isolation, failure to act on data or information that showed cause for concern, the absence of a culture of openness, a lack of willingness to learn from mistakes, a lack of ambition, and ineffectual governance and assurance processes. In some cases, trust boards were shockingly unaware of problems discovered by the review teams in their own hospitals. Today I can therefore announce that 11 of the 14 hospitals will be placed into special measures for fundamental breaches of care. In addition, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor have today placed all 14 trusts on notice to fulfil all the recommendations made by the review. All will be inspected again within the next 12 months by the new chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, who starts work today.
	The hospitals in special measures are as follows: Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where patients spoke of being left on unmonitored trolleys for excessive periods and where the panel found a general culture of “accepting sub-optimal care”; North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, where the panel found evidence of poor maintenance in two operating theatres, which were closed immediately; Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel found evidence of staff working for 12 days in a row without a break; and North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel identified serious concerns in relation to out-of-hours stroke services at Diana, Princess of Wales hospital. The panel also witnessed a patient who was inappropriately exposed where both male and female patients were present. [Interruption.]
	The list continues: United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, where there were a staggering 12 “never events” in just three years and the panel had serious concerns about the way “Do not attempt resuscitation” forms were being completed; Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where patients told of being unaware of who was caring for them, and of buzzers going unanswered and poor attention being paid to oral hygiene; East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have a running commentary on the statement as it is delivered. I remind the House that last Wednesday—when there were scenes of grave disorder manifested by Members on both sides of the House—the public reaction to that exceptionally bad behaviour was understandably negative. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to show courtesy and restraint. They can rely upon me to protect their interests—if they were here on time for the statement—to question the Secretary of State, but the statement must be heard.

Jeremy Hunt: The panel also highlighted issues of poor governance, inadequate staffing levels and high mortality rates at weekends at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS
	Trust. Patients and their families complained of a lack of compassion and being talked down to by medical staff whenever they expressed concerns.
	The remaining hospitals in special measures are as follows: Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where there were seven “never events” in three years and concerns over infection control and overnight staffing levels; George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, where the panel identified low levels of clinical cover, especially out of hours, a growing incidence of bed sores and too much unnecessary shifting of patients between wards; Medway NHS Foundation Trust, where a public consultation heard stories of poor communication with patients, poor management of deteriorating patients, inappropriate referrals and medical interventions, delayed discharges and long accident and emergency waiting times; and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, where the panel found significant shortcomings in the quality of nursing care relating to patient medication, nutrition and observations, and heard complaints from families about the way patients with dementia were treated.
	For those 11 trusts, special measures mean that each hospital will be required to implement the recommendations of the Keogh review, with external teams sent in to help them do this. Their progress will be tracked and made public. The TDA or Monitor will assess the quality of leadership at each hospital, requiring the removal of any senior managers unable to lead the improvements required. Each hospital will also be partnered with a high-performing NHS organisation to provide mentorship and guidance in improving the quality and safety of care.
	Three of the 14 hospitals are not going into special measures. They are the Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust and the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Although there were still concerns about the quality of care provided, Monitor has confidence that the leadership teams in place can deliver the recommendations of the Keogh review and will hold them to account for doing so.
	This is a proportionate response in line with the findings of the review. Inevitably, there will be widespread public concern not just about these hospitals but about any NHS hospital, and some have chosen to criticise me for pointing out where there are failures in care, but the best way to restore trust in our NHS is transparency and honesty about problems, followed by decisiveness in sorting them out. The public need to know that we will stop at nothing to give patients the high-quality care they deserve for themselves and their loved ones. Today’s review and the rigorous actions that we are taking demonstrate the progress this Government are making in response to the Francis report. I shall update the House in the autumn on all of the wide-ranging measures that we are implementing, when the House will be given a chance to debate them in Government time.
	The NHS exists to provide patients with safe, compassionate and effective care. In the vast majority of places it does just this, and we should remember that there continues to be much good care even in the hospitals reviewed today. Just as we cannot tolerate mediocre or weak leadership, we must not tolerate any attempts to cover up such failings. It is never acceptable for Government Ministers to put pressure on the NHS to suppress bad news, because in doing so they make it less likely that poor care will be tackled.
	We have today begun a journey to change this culture. These 14 failing hospital trusts are not the end of the story. Where there are other examples of unacceptable care, we will find them and we will root them out. Under the new rigorous inspection regime led by the chief inspector of hospitals, if a hospital is not performing as it should, the public will be told. If a hospital is failing, it will be put into special measures with a limited time period to sort out its problems. There will be accountability, too: failure in the NHS should never be a consequence-free zone, so we will stop unjustified pay-offs and ensure it will no longer be possible for failed managers to get new positions elsewhere in the system.
	Hand in hand with greater accountability, there will be greater support. Drawing inspiration from education, where super-heads have helped to turn around failing schools, I have asked the NHS Leadership Academy to develop a programme that will identify, support and train outstanding leaders. We have many extraordinary leaders such as David Dalton in Salford Royal and Dame Julie Moore of University hospital Birmingham, but we need many more to provide the leadership required in our weaker hospitals.
	At all times, this Government will stand up for hard-working NHS staff and patients who know that poor care and weak leadership have no place in our NHS. It was set up 65 years ago with a pledge to provide us all with the best available care, and I am determined that the NHS will stand by that pledge. We owe its patients nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: First, let me join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Bruce Keogh and his team for this important review. Having worked closely with Sir Bruce, I know him well and have the utmost respect for him. His review presents a challenging but accurate picture of care standards and failings at the 14 trusts. As with both Francis reports, we accept the findings of this report in full.
	The statement we have just heard, however—the partisan statement—was not worthy of the excellent report that Sir Bruce has delivered today. The Health Secretary claimed at Health questions that this was a historical report, all about the past and the last Government. Well, I have got news for him: it is not. Trusts were identified on the basis of mortality data for 2011 and 2012. This report is about the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and failings that are happening now on this Government’s watch.
	Anyone who supports the NHS must always be prepared to shine a spotlight on its failings, so it can face up to them and improve. In so doing, we must be fair to staff and the NHS as a whole. I am pleased to say that Sir Bruce is fair in his report. He says early in the report that the failings of the 14 hospitals must be put in context, stating that mortality in “all NHS hospitals” has been falling over the last decade by about 30%. He rightly reminds us of
	“decades of neglect in the NHS in the 1980s and 1990s”,
	and he speaks of the challenge facing the last Government in their early days. The key issue, he said,
	“was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment.”
	The last Labour Government dealt with that issue; I am proud of it and we are proud of our record on the NHS.
	The balanced picture presented in this report is not recognisable from the Government briefing appearing in the weekend newspapers. In fact, this report exposes one of the more cynical spin operations of recent times. Nowhere in this report does the claim of 13,000 avoidable deaths appear. Sir Bruce is clear, so let me quote him directly:
	“However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths”,
	but that is precisely what this Government chose to do in advance of this report. They made unfounded claims, which will have alarmed people in the areas served by the 14 hospitals, and they have questioned the integrity of the staff working in those hospitals in difficult circumstances—and all for their own self-serving political ends. That is simply unworthy of any responsible Government. On reading this review, the diversionary spin operation now makes sense because it reveals evidence of deterioration at all 14 hospitals on their watch.
	Let me turn to one of Sir Bruce’s central findings—unsafe staffing. One of the report’s major concerns is that trusts have allowed staffing levels to drop to dangerously low levels. It says:
	“When the review teams visited the hospitals, they found frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas.”
	Already, the review team has had to intervene on staffing levels in three trusts to protect patient safety.
	The Secretary of State claimed in his comments that the Care Quality Commission had failed to spot any problems. Working with the CQC during the last Government, I left in place warnings about five of these hospitals. The Secretary of State claims that we were covering up, so let me answer on the question of Ministers’ integrity and cite the Francis report, which said that there was no evidence that any Minister received or ignored advice that would have led to safe outcomes. Let me quote to him from a letter sent by Baroness Young to the Prime Minister yesterday:
	“CQC was not pressurised by the previous Government to tone down its regulatory judgments or to hide quality failures.”
	It is outrageous for the Secretary of State to come to the House today and repeat those concerns without a shred of evidence to back them up.
	Five of the trusts examined by Keogh had warnings in place, and it is shocking that they have been allowed to cut staff to unsafe levels on this Government’s watch. Overall, seven of the trusts in the review have cut front-line staff by a shocking 1,117. The great sadness is that it appears Ministers are in danger of forgetting the lessons of Stafford, where Robert Francis identified “dangerous cuts” to the front line as a primary cause of care failures. Like Robert Francis, Sir Bruce makes recommendations on appropriate staffing levels. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State can no longer ignore these authoritative calls, and will he take urgent action on safe staffing levels in these 14 trusts and across the NHS? Will he accept that the loss of over 4,000 nursing jobs that has now been laid bare under this Government is a monumental mistake, while £3 billion has been siphoned out of the NHS front line to pay for reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for?
	Let me turn to A and E performance, the barometer of the health service and a wider indication of problems across hospitals. The report highlights major failings in A and E at many of the trusts and we know that the NHS has just come through the worst winter for a decade. At the end of last year, all 14 trusts were in breach of the Government’s A and E target—when, under the previous Government, all 14 were meeting the A and E target.
	Sir Bruce is clear that urgent action is needed to improve A and E. Let me quote the report:
	“We have established that one of the primary causes of high mortality in these hospitals are found primarily in urgent and emergency care, and particularly in care for frail and elderly patients…All trusts were functioning at high levels of capacity in the urgent care pathway. This frequently led to challenges in A&E and, as a consequence, cancellation of operations due to bed shortages and difficulty meeting waiting time targets.”
	Will the Secretary of State now take immediate action, working with the whole health economy in these 14 areas, to bring each trust back up to the national standards on A and E that his Government have set? Will he accept that it is not fair to these hospitals to blame them alone, as the devastating cuts to social care are a major driver of pressure in hospitals?
	Finally, on what happens next, the simple truth is that people watching will want solutions rather than point scoring. Surely the right response to the Keogh review is now to accept the Francis recommendations in full, particularly on minimum staffing. A duty of candour on individuals will help bring the culture change we need at local level and, of course, we need to see the regulation of health care assistants. Will the Secretary of State work with us now on early implementation of the Francis recommendations? He spoke earlier of a new era of transparency. If he means what he says, will he now publish the NHS risk register? For all we know, it might well have predicted some of the failings we are reading about today.
	It is a sad fact that mistakes will be made in any walk of life, even in the NHS. What matters is how the NHS responds. Rather than pulling down the shutters and pushing people away, it is right that we should hold a mirror up to the NHS so that it can act on its failings. We must also be fair to people working in the NHS by ensuring that an accurate picture is presented. Sir Bruce has had to take the extraordinary step already of distancing himself from the Government briefings that appeared at the weekend. I hope the Government will learn a painful lesson from this: you should not play politics with people’s lives and you should not play politics with the NHS, on which all people depend.

Jeremy Hunt: Mr Speaker, it is hard for a serving Health Secretary to admit that things can go wrong in the NHS, but we know today that it is even harder for a former Health Secretary. We have heard nothing but shameful denial. The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Irranca-Davies, you look as though you are about to explode. I am worried about you. I think you probably need to have a lie down or to take some sort of medicament—it might be of benefit to you. You must calm yourself.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman talked about being partisan and party political. It is not party political to highlight poor care; it is doing the right thing for patients.
	Let us look at what independent people have said about Labour’s time in office. Roger Davidson, the former head of media at the CQC, said that
	“there were conversations between the CQC and Ministers to the effect that the CQC would not cause any trouble…The message that ‘we don’t want bad news’ infected the whole organisation”.
	Professor Brian Jarman—[Interruption.] I think Opposition Members might want to listen to this, because it is what independent people are saying. Professor Jarman, who invented hospital standardised mortality indices, said that
	“the problem was ministerial pressure, even from Number 10.”
	This is most damaging: the right hon. Gentleman talked about what Barbara Young, Labour peer and head of the CQC, said under pressure from the Labour Whips, but what did she say under oath to the Francis inquiry? She said that
	“the government hated the idea…the regulator would criticise it… We were under more pressure, I think, when Andy Burnham became minister, from the politics.”
	That is what a Labour peer said. These people are not Government supporters—at least, not of this Government —but were trying to do their job in exposing poor care and the right hon. Gentleman stopped them.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks of spin, but I will tell him who had to fight hardest against spin: the whistleblowers he tried to shut up. What do they say? James Titcombe, who tragically lost his son at Morecambe bay, tweeted that
	“you made big mistakes Andy, it’s time you admitted it.”
	Julie Bailey, who lost her mother at Mid Staffs, said that Labour crushed the culture of care from the NHS. [Interruption.] Deb Hazeldine, from Mid Staffs, who lost a relative, said that the shadow Secretary of State was trying to “defend the indefensible”—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to imagine how anyone can hear these exchanges. The content of questions and answers is to be determined by Members, but I gently remind the House of the need for good order and that this is not a debate. There will be debates, but this is not a debate but a statement on which there is questioning, to which there is then a ministerial answer. This is not an opportunity for general speechifying but for responses to specific questions made with economy so that I can accommodate all interested colleagues.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would have hoped that the Opposition would want to listen more respectfully to what whistleblowers said about their attempts to expose poor care.
	Let me respond to what the right hon. Gentleman says. He says that Labour tackled the problems, but the evidence shows the opposite. We talked about Tameside earlier, but what about Basildon? There were high death rates for nine years under Labour—in every year since 2001. Half the staff said they would not want their own friends and family treated there. Ministers received 237 letters between 2005 and 2010, yet what did the CQC do? It rated the hospital as “good” and within four weeks Ministers were shamed into launching an investigation into high mortality rates—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have tried to explain the position calmly—[Interruption.] Order. I shall do so once more. I think the Secretary of State will appreciate that he has been asked questions about present arrangements to which we need pithy replies, not a lengthy statement about events of the past that happened before he had responsibility. We cannot have that. If that is what he is planning to read out, we will simply move on. A brief conclusion to his answer is now required and sought by the House.

Jeremy Hunt: So, Mr Speaker, let me briefly take the final two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He says the trusts have got worse since 2010, but what does he do when I criticise the lack of progress—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. My impression is that the Secretary of State is now seeking to treat of matters since May 2010 and he must be given the opportunity to do so, with colleagues and people outside being able to hear the answers.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	What does the right hon. Gentleman do when I criticise the lack of rapid progress in tackling failure in our hospitals? He criticises me for making an unbelievable statement and states that there are no coasting hospitals, but today proves that he is wrong. What is unbelievable is his total refusal to admit that it is not just a question of coasting hospitals, but a Labour party that has coasted for too long on its reputation on the NHS.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman says that we are trying—[Interruption.] This is difficult for Labour Members to hear, so let us get to the point. He says that we are trying to run down the NHS. Let me say this: if we did not believe in the NHS, we would not be tackling these problems. The best way to support the NHS is not to ignore poor care, not to muzzle the CQC, not to ignore requests for public inquiries and not to ignore warnings constantly. If founding the NHS is considered Labour’s proudest achievement, today is its darkest moment as a Labour Government are exposed as caring more about their own reputation than about our most vulnerable citizens in the NHS—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Has the Secretary of State finished his answer? He has. We are grateful and I thank him for saying that he has finished.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House of the long-established and generally adhered-to convention that Members who were not present at the start of a statement do not rise to question the relevant Minister. That has long been regarded as a discourtesy, and it should not happen. I have a list of Members who arrived late, but I hope that they will not render it necessary for me to draw attention to the fact. I ask those who arrived late, in all courtesy, not to rise to their feet.
	We will now make progress as expeditiously as we can, led by the Chair of the Health Committee.

Stephen Dorrell: Those who want to make the case for change in an organisation—and, after the Francis review, who can doubt the need for
	change in parts of the national health service?—must first demonstrate the need for change. Does this review not build on the distinguished record of both Bruce Keogh and Sir Brian Jarman in demonstrating the need for change in parts of our national health service?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. As I know he agrees, identifying problems publicly is incredibly difficult, but the way to ensure that those problems are dealt with is to be totally honest and transparent about them in the knowledge that they will be sorted out as a result, and that is what is happening today.

Alan Johnson: Thankfully, the quality of Sir Bruce Keogh’s report is vastly superior to that of the statement that we heard from the Secretary of State. Is it not the case that Sir Bruce Keogh—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very concerned about the fact that someone shouted something, and I think I heard a word that was unparliamentary. I did not see an individual who was responsible, and I do not know who was responsible, but I simply say to the House—[Interruption.] Order. It is no good people burbling on about whistleblowers from a sedentary position. Let us lower the temperature, and have orderly exchanges. [Interruption.] Order. I remind the House that I called the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to ask a question. Let us do him the courtesy of hearing the conclusion of that question.

Alan Johnson: Is it not the case that Sir Bruce may have given us a blueprint for better regulation, provided that the Secretary of State faces up to his responsibility and ends the tawdry and squalid attempts by his party to denigrate his predecessors?

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of those predecessors, would accept at a quieter moment outside the Chamber that one of the biggest mistakes made during his time as Secretary of State—or at least it was initiated then—was the appalling change that was made to the regulation of hospitals. The CQC was stripped of expert inspectors, and hospitals began to be inspected by generalists. The same group of people would inspect a slimming clinic, a dental practice, a GP’s surgery, and a major London teaching hospital. That very significant mistake lies at the heart of the reason why the CQC approved and certified so many failing hospitals.
	I am happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that honest mistakes were made and we will put them right, but today there must be honesty about what those mistakes were.

Cheryl Gillan: Patients and their families outside this place will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State on his brave decision not to sweep NHS failures under the carpet.
	You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that Buckinghamshire contains many areas of health care that are of high quality, but the report identifies some failings, one of which is the quality of out-of-hours and weekend nursing
	and medical cover for acute medical patients. That is clearly linked to difficulties relating to the recruitment, retention and availability of competent clinicians and nurses. What more can the Department do to help our trusts improve out-of-hours provision and, in particular, the quality of temporary staff, so that those problems can be eliminated?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is right. Serious problems were identified in Buckinghamshire relating to out-of-hours care and also to dementia patients, who themselves often need help out of hours. I raised the difficult issue of the GP contract because, in order to solve such problems, we need more joined-up care in the community. The Chancellor has announced an additional £2.8 billion for joint commissioning arrangements between local authorities and health care bodies, and I think that the combination of those two measures will secure a vastly improved out-of-hours service for my right hon. Friend’s constituents.

Jack Straw: I welcome the Keogh report and the action that the Secretary of State has announced, which, although it will be uncomfortable for my local health trust, I believe to be necessary. However, I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the comments that he has made demean his office. I sat in the Cabinet with my right hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I saw how anxious they were to root out inefficiency and failings, and to cover nothing up, and I think it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to suggest that he and his party have a monopoly when it comes to concern about the transparency and effectiveness of the health service.
	Last Thursday, the Secretary of State commended Royal Blackburn hospital for its vascular services and accepted the excellence of many of its staff. While we are navigating through this difficult period, is it not crucially important for us to echo the Keogh report and point out that, overwhelmingly, hospitals in areas such as mine employ high-quality staff who require better leadership?

Jeremy Hunt: Improving leadership is vital throughout the NHS. All Governments must take responsibility for what happens on their watch, and I have taken responsibility today for those 14 hospitals and all their serious problems. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that between 2005 and 2010 his Government received 142 letters about his hospital which they did nothing about, and introduced a regulatory system that did not expose poor care and ensure that it was addressed.

Andrew George: I welcome Sir Bruce Keogh’s important report. However, although I admire my right hon. Friend, I totally dissociate myself from his ill-judged attempt to drag this important issue into the gutter of partisan politics and petty point-scoring. I expect better of him than that.
	It is clear from annex A of the report that in all but one of the 14 hospitals, problems relating to staffing levels and the staff mix need to be addressed, and
	ambition 6 recommends action to address them. As my right hon. Friend knows, I campaign on this issue. What will the Government do to ensure that staffing levels are adequate in our acute hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: Tackling failure in our NHS is not an easy path to take, but it is the right thing to do for patients. If my hon. Friend believes that all the care problems in the NHS started in 2010, I think he is the only Member who does. [Interruption.] Opposition Members must bear their share of the responsibility for the failures that they did not sort out. Staffing is indeed a problem that needs to be sorted out in many trusts, which is why we commissioned the review and why we are sending in turnaround teams to do just that.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State has made an appalling attempt to smear my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Will he now acknowledge that in 2009, my right hon. Friend sought a review of all the hospitals with high mortality rates, that 21 were registered with conditions, and that five had warnings placed on them, which he and he his predecessor inherited? Will he tell the House what he and his predecessor did in respect of those hospitals in 2010, 2011 and 2012?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said in my statement, in nine of these 14 trusts, the chief executive or chair has been either replaced or moved on. However, the most important thing that we are doing is setting up a transparent failure regime, so that when problems arise they will be made public, so the system will never know something that the public do not, and so that Ministers will be required to take action to sort out failing hospitals. That is what is happening under this Government, but I am afraid that it did not happen when the right hon. Lady’s party was in power.

William Cash: The Keogh report, which must be welcomed, followed the Francis report. Despite my continuous attempts to have a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, successive Labour Secretaries of State refused. Can my right hon. Friend find out from the Department or in any other way how that happened? Will he be good enough to publish his findings, because the root of the real trouble is that they were not prepared to have an inquiry and it was a cover-up?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend knows that the Labour party refused 81 requests for a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs—I repeat: 81 requests. He also knows that if it was not for that public inquiry, we would not be here now. That is the biggest lesson to learn about the benefits of a public inquiry, and that is why transparency matters. I hope he is also pleased that we will be having a debate on the Francis report in Government time later this year.

Tony Cunningham: If the teams going into Cumbria recommend increased staffing and resources, will the Secretary of State fund that?

Jeremy Hunt: If the issues are around staffing, we will sort those out. If the issues are around leadership, we will sort those out. If the issues are around clinical
	practice, we will sort that out. My commitment to the House is that we will do what it takes to sort out these failing hospitals.

Phillip Lee: In 2006 the then Labour Government purchased 49% of Dr Foster, the intelligence unit from which a lot of these mortality data are emanating. Does the Secretary of State agree that for Secretaries of State from that point onwards to be claiming they were unaware of the data seems a bit rich?

Jeremy Hunt: There were repeatedly high mortality rates in all these 14 hospitals, and it took the public inquiry that Labour did not want to demonstrate to the world just how important hospital standardised mortality ratios are. They are the smoke alarm that was ignored in the case of Mid Staffs, and which could have led to the prevention of thousands of tragedies if we had taken action earlier. That is why we immediately insisted on this review by Sir Bruce.

Grahame Morris: I think there is widespread respect for Sir Bruce Keogh and his report and I certainly welcome it, but it is a cynical move by the Secretary of State to try to besmirch the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). May I point out that on this Government’s watch clinical negligence claims are up 50%, A and E waits are at a nine-year high and “never events” have tripled? What is the Secretary of State going to do about them?

Jeremy Hunt: We spend more than £1 billion every year on clinical negligence because the hon. Gentleman’s Government changed the rules so that trusts suffer no financial penalty when they have to pay a clinical negligence claim. That is something we really need to look at, because it is removing one of the biggest possible incentives for trusts to treat people safely.

Mark Reckless: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Medway we were left with just three consultants to share cover of A and E, but we have now increased the number to six, and it will soon rise to eight?

Jeremy Hunt: These are precisely the problems that this review is designed to root out. There were problems with long A and E waits as well as with inappropriate medical interventions and poor communication with patients, but I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will be reassured by the transparency of what is happening today, and the fact that I am making this Government accountable for sorting out those sorts of problems.

Chris Bryant: I suspect that in a quieter moment the Secretary of State will not think this statement was his proudest moment. [Interruption.] Well, it seems that he used to be run by Coulson and now he is run by Crosby.
	Most voters will be more interested in the future and how we can make sure that people’s lives are protected, so what does the Secretary of State have to say about the fact that fewer people are coming from other countries to work in the NHS? Because of the Government’s
	immigration policy, there is a real danger that we will have a significant problem in A and E recruitment across the country.

Jeremy Hunt: I struggle to find the link between that question and Sir Bruce Keogh’s report on the 14 hospitals, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked about A and E, and as he is trying to take the moral high ground, perhaps he would explain why he has not been standing up in this House campaigning against Labour’s abysmal record, as it has missed its A and E targets in Wales since 2009.

Rehman Chishti: In 2005 and 2006 Medway Maritime hospital had the seventh worst mortality rate in the country, yet nothing was done. May I thank the Secretary of State for the actions he has put forward today, which will help improve the quality of care for my constituents and people from further afield?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. There were high mortality rates in his hospital in six of the nine years they were measured under the last Labour Government, and there were problems with A and E and with inappropriate medical interventions. He can say to his constituents today that the Government have identified the problem and have been transparent about it, and we will be accountable for sorting it out.

Kevin Barron: How many health professional regulatory bodies has the Secretary of State met since the publication of the Francis report?

Jeremy Hunt: I think I have met most of them, but I have certainly met the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and I have talked to them about the reasons they are finding it difficult to remove doctors and nurses from their lists when there are questions about their poor performance.

Tracey Crouch: To complete the Medway Maritime hat trick, may I say I am very disappointed to hear from the Secretary of State that the hospital has gone into special measures? I have been assured that Sir Bruce Keogh’s recommendations are already being implemented, but will the Secretary of State say in what time frame he, and more importantly my constituents, should expect to see significant improvements at the Maritime?

Jeremy Hunt: We want these things to happen as quickly as possible, but all the hospitals Sir Bruce reviewed will be looked at again within the next year by the chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, who starts work today, so we will be able to measure whether progress has been as swift as my hon. Friend and I would like.

Helen Jones: May I ask the Secretary of State to actually discharge one of the responsibilities of his office by answering a simple question? If he believes that managers should not be able to get another post if they fail, why was there a plan to transfer the chief nurse from the failed Morecambe Bay NHS Trust on secondment to Warrington and Halton on the Secretary of State’s watch, stopped only when
	my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I found out about it? Did he or his Ministers know about this plan, and if not, why not?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly the reason why we are introducing measures to make sure—[Interruption.] Well, the Francis report was introduced to this House on 6 February, and we have said we will change legislation this year. We have already appointed a chief inspector of hospitals. I do not think we could go much faster. The trouble for the Labour party is not that we are going too slowly but that we are going too fast and exposing all sorts of problems which it wishes did not happen.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for shining a light on to the health care provided by Queen’s hospital in Burton. Although Queen’s has a lower unexpected death rate than other hospitals, any unnecessary death is a tragedy for the family concerned. Given that since 2005 Queen’s hospital had a higher mortality rate than Stafford hospital, does he understand the anger of my constituents who have seen their loved ones die unnecessarily and these concerns ignored by Labour?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend’s hospital had excess mortality rates for five of the nine years leading up to 2010 and not enough action was taken, and that is what today is all about. I hope that what his constituents will take from today is that this Government are committed to turning around failing hospitals and putting in place the right leadership, and the reassurance that when their loved ones go to Queen’s hospital or anywhere else in the country, they can get the kind of care they would want for themselves.

Gisela Stuart: May I say to the Secretary of State that there is a tone and a language that we should choose to employ for candid conversations about failure and it saddens me that he did not find that language today, because it will not do us any good? The Francis report recommended a duty of candour. Will he update the House as to just how much progress he has made on that?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can. We have accepted the recommendation that there should be a duty of candour on the boards of hospitals, with criminal sanctions if they fail to tell members of the public that they or their loved ones have been harmed by the hospital, and if they fail to tell the system that those incidents have happened. We have commissioned a review of safety by Sir Don Berwick, one of the greatest experts in the world, and we shall ask him whether we should extend that duty of candour to below board level. We shall wait to hear what he says. We understand the reasons why people might want to do that, but we are also aware that others have expressed the concern that it might destroy an atmosphere of trust in a hospital if people were worried about criminal consequences if they did not talk about any failures they saw in their daily work.

Margot James: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s break with the culture of cover-up that has been so prevalent in the past. I reject absolutely
	the shadow Health Secretary’s claim that the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust’s performance has deteriorated since 2010—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is asking a question, but I have distinctly heard Members—in some cases identifiable Members—trying to shout her down. That should not happen on either side of the House. If she wishes to continue with her question, she may do so.

Margot James: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I reject the shadow Health Secretary’s claim. The new leadership that was appointed to the trust in 2009 found deep-seated problems there. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, the positive notes in Sir Bruce Keogh’s report about that new leadership’s abilities, and Sir Bruce’s finding that the overall work force at our trust are
	“committed, loyal, passionate, caring and motivated”?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome that, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s trust was not one of the ones that it was necessary to put into special measures. We have learnt a lesson from the successful way in which the schools system is regulated. Ofsted distinguishes between failing schools that have in place good management who are able to turn the school round and those where a change of leadership is required, and I am pleased that the report found that Dudley had the right leadership in place.

Gloria De Piero: I welcome the report and I hope that the new chief executive at King’s Mill hospital in my constituency will provide the leadership that has been lacking in recent years. He assures me that he will implement all the report’s recommendations. The report mentions
	“significant concerns around staffing levels at…King’s Mill Hospital”.
	The trust has lost more than 200 nurses since 2010. Can we have them back?

Jeremy Hunt: Staffing levels are indeed one of the issues that contribute to poor care, if we get them wrong. That is why we are committed to implementing the Francis recommendations on safe staffing levels, and why, having protected and increased the NHS budget—contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State wanted—we now have 6,000 additional doctors working in the NHS. [Interruption.] In these individual cases, if staffing levels are the issue, they will be addressed.

John Baron: The Secretary of State has been absolutely right to highlight and pursue past failures for the benefit of future patients. That includes investigating why the regulatory system seems to have failed in these cases. Does he agree, however, that we must not allow the report to overshadow much of the good work that is being done in our hospitals, including Basildon hospital which now has new management and is instigating changes?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with that. One reason why it is so important to reform the regulatory structures that we inherited is that they tried to identify only poor care—not terribly successfully—when we need a system that identifies outstanding care as well. We need such a system for the
	benefit of the general reputation of the NHS and the morale of the service. We also need one so that a failing hospital can have an organisation on which it can model itself, just as a failing school can model itself on a school that has received an outstanding Ofsted report. That provides a solution to the problem: we identify a problem transparently and we sort it out.

Chris Williamson: The Secretary of State said that he was proud of the NHS, yet he and his Ministers have supported a top-down reorganisation of the national health service that will lead to 49% privatisation and cut 4,000 nurses. We know from the Francis report that staffing levels are key to the whole agenda, and the Secretary of State has just said he acknowledges that, so will he reinstate the 4,000 nurses he has cut from the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to acknowledge that more money has gone to the front line as a result of the reorganisation that this Government have introduced. We have 8,000 more clinical staff now than when the Labour Government were in office.

Steven Baker: Walter Coles died because he was forgotten. Edward Maitland died because he was fed solid food. I could name others; those are just two of the patients who have died unnecessarily. And yet high mortality rates made it on to the board’s agenda in Buckinghamshire only because of a trigger relating to concern for reputational risk. The board had no robust risk management practices in place, and there were no plans to introduce any. Furthermore, certain key elements relating to changes in urgent care were missing. In setting out to champion patients, will my right hon. Friend set out how it will be possible to remove an entire board, or any members of a board who are not performing well?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extraordinary campaigning on behalf of his constituents. It is very difficult for a local Member to take on his own hospital when he finds failings, but he does it with great bravery. Yes, we need to ensure that the way we judge hospitals is not just about meeting waiting time and A and E targets, important though they are; it must also be about safety, about compassionate care and about governance. Other things matter as well. That is what we are changing.

Jack Dromey: In a new low for British politics, the Secretary of State today descended into the gutter. How can he begin to blame the last Government for the deterioration at the 14 hospitals concerned, which took place under this Government, especially as the Government were warned about unacceptable standards in five of them?

Jeremy Hunt: The low in British politics is that it took so long for a Government to be honest about failings in the NHS. Many of those hospitals have a culture that entrenched failure for years and years under the last Labour Government, yet Labour Members refuse to accept that even now. What does that say to the public about whether they can be trusted with the future of our NHS?

Martin Vickers: I welcome the robust and determined approach that my right hon. Friend is taking. It is right that the mistakes of the past should be thoroughly investigated, but my constituents—some of whom are waiting to go into Grimsby and Scunthorpe hospitals—need an assurance that action will be taken to remedy the situation immediately. There are many dedicated staff in our area, but recruitment has always been a problem in northern Lincolnshire. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if additional support is needed to recruit the best clinicians and managers, it will be made available?

Jeremy Hunt: We will quite simply do what it takes to ensure that we implement the recommendations of the Keogh review for north Lincolnshire hospitals. We owe my hon. Friend’s constituents nothing less. The first step is to be honest about the problems. The big difference between the two sides of the House is illustrated by the fact that we will restore morale not by pretending that the problems do not exist but by being honest about them and confronting them. That is what we will do in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Sarah Champion: I should like to start by offering my deepest sympathy to the patients and families. We are talking about mortality statistics, but these are actually loved ones who have been lost. For the second time today, I ask the Secretary of State whether he will accept, adopt and implement the recommendations in the Francis report.

Jeremy Hunt: And for the second time, I say yes.

Tony Baldry: Professor Brian Jarman observed that, until recently, the Department of Health seemed to be a “denial machine” and that there was suppression and spin. Will the Secretary of State and the whole House at least agree that there is no room for denial, suppression or spin in the NHS, and that what we need for the future are total transparency, accountability and a Care Quality Commission that performs properly and professionally?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely, because the first step towards sorting out these problems is to have a system that Ministers cannot interfere with so that when there is failure, regulators are able to speak out without any political pressure—without any Ministers leaning on them in the run-up to elections—in the interests of patients. That is why we are completely changing the CQC. We are introducing a chief inspector of hospitals, who will be the nation’s whistleblower and who will have the independence and freedom that the old CQC never had. I hope that will help the public feel more confident that where there are problems they are properly tackled and not swept under the carpet.

Alex Cunningham: Several times the Secretary of State has admitted that staffing cut drastically on his watch is a major factor in deteriorating care in the NHS—an NHS that has been in the charge of the Conservative party for more than three years. What is he going to do about restoring staffing levels?

Jeremy Hunt: Clinical staff numbers have gone up by 8,000 since 2010: there are 6,000 more doctors, 1,000 more midwives and 1,000 more health visitors. The numbers
	have gone up since 2010. If we followed the shadow Secretary of State’s advice and cut the NHS budget from its current levels, that would not be possible.

Marcus Jones: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has sought to take tough decisions to bring more openness and transparency to our NHS and not keep sweeping things under the carpet. Improving quality for patients is the immediate priority, and I support him in the decisive action he has taken, but will he also now seek to establish a sustainable future for the George Eliot hospital, which has suffered from a great deal of uncertainty since 2006?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely intend to do that. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to the George Eliot hospital, working part of a shift in its accident and emergency department. I thought the staff there were working extremely hard, under great pressure. I noticed that the hospital did not have the systems in place that others have; I believe that hospital had 16 IT systems, which meant that if someone in the A and E department needed a blood test, all the details would have to be re-entered on a different system. That takes up a lot of clinical time, so making changes in these areas can make a big difference. But I do think it is important, as we expose these problems, that we recognise that even at the 14 hospitals mentioned today good care is being provided every day and the staff in those hospitals are working very hard. We need to back them, and the best way of doing so is to give them confidence that we are going to turn around their hospital.

Andrew Miller: Management systems that are run on a blame culture inevitably create cover-ups and lead to people disguising the facts. Will the Secretary of State now show some leadership by trying to eradicate that from the health service? Will he take the advice Professor Ashton gave on Radio 4 this morning, because he expressed a firm way forward for the NHS? Will the Secretary of State stop playing these silly political games and follow Professor Ashton’s advice?

Jeremy Hunt: It is not playing silly political games to expose poor care; it is doing my duty as Health Secretary, and that is what I will continue to do. Improving systems, such as making sure there is safe staffing, is very important. It is ridiculous in this day and age that someone can be admitted to A and E but that department cannot access their GP record, and cannot see whether they are a diabetic or whether they have mild dementia. Those are things we are determined to sort out.

Bob Russell: On 6 February, the Prime Minister asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh to review the quality of hospital care. Although Colchester is only one hour from London, Sir Bruce did not make a single visit in the five months that elapsed. Although, obviously, I welcome the Secretary of State’s observation today that for Colchester general hospital this is more of a green light than a red light, will he do what Sir Bruce did not do and visit the hospital, so that he can, in the words of the panel, meet a large number of “committed and enthusiastic” staff?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to do that. I try to visit somewhere on the front line in the NHS every week, making sure I do not just visit the best places; I visit places that have problems and places like Colchester hospital which are improving—I am delighted that Sir Bruce’s report recognised that.

Emily Thornberry: The Secretary of State began his statement with an alarming story about patients being left unmonitored on trolleys—I understand that took place at Tameside hospital. Does he agree that there may be a connection between that and the fact that there are 128 fewer nurses, midwives and health visitors in that hospital than there were in 2010? Given that the previous Government flagged up that hospital as one of particular concern, was he watching it to make sure that there were no cuts in nursing staff there?

Jeremy Hunt: As I have said many times, where there is not safe staffing we need to put that right. As I have also said, there are 8,000 more front-line staff under this Government than there were when the hon. Lady’s Government were in power. But those are not the only issues; we also need to address issues of leadership, of systems, which we talked about, and of clinical effectiveness. We need to sort out all those. On staffing numbers, I would just point out that plenty of hospitals under equivalent financial pressures are managing to deliver outstanding care, so a lot of this is about getting the right leadership in place at a board level.

Andrew Bridgen: On 1 July, just over two weeks ago, my aunt died unexpectedly and alone at Queen’s hospital, Burton. The Keogh review has now shown that hospital to have had a higher mortality rate than Stafford since at least 2005. Will my right hon. Friend pledge to work tirelessly to heal our NHS, so that my constituents, my friends and my relatives do not continue to die unnecessarily because of the failed policies of the previous Labour Government? [Interruption.]

Jeremy Hunt: This is the problem. [Interruption.] This is the denial we are getting from the Labour party; it is denying any responsibility for these deep-seated problems in some of our hospitals. As Health Secretary, I intend to do exactly as my hon. Friend describes. In order to try to measure the progress we are making, we will this year for the first time be asking every NHS in-patient whether they would recommend the quality of care that they received to a friend or a member of their family, because in the end that is what this is all about.

Derek Twigg: In May 2010, had mortality rates been falling in NHS hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: According to Professor Jarman on the radio this morning, the answer is that it has been falling slightly.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the fact that Colchester general hospital is not being put in special measures. That expresses Monitor’s confidence in the current leadership of the hospital, which is already implementing improvements in the areas that it told the Keogh report about, which are reported
	to be the matters of concern. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s emphasis on leadership, and openness and trust of leadership, but does he accept what we are finding in the Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into complaints handling in public services that that lack of trust and openness is found not just at trust level, but goes right up the command chain of the health service and has historically existed in the Department of Health? How will he challenge that culture and define the right kind of leadership that should be taught by the leadership academy?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The simple way we can change that culture, which will not be easy and will not happen immediately, is by making sure that where there is failure, there is someone who is independent and able to speak up about that failure without fear or favour—someone to be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief. That is what we must have with the new chief inspector of hospitals, modelled on the chief inspector of schools and how well the whole Ofsted regulation system has worked. That has to be the first step; there must be no hiding place when there is failure. From there, we will have the pressure on the whole system, right the way up to Ministers, to make sure that failure is sorted out.

Nicholas Dakin: Sir Bruce Keogh warns us in his report about the very reaction we have seen today, which is in danger of shaming this House by focusing on politics instead of people. He wrote in his first few paragraphs that
	“this is not a time for hasty reactions and recriminations”.
	I read those words at five past 8 this morning when the Department of Health finally opened up to allow Members of Parliament to read what was there. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents, who use Scunthorpe general hospital, that he will work to support people and put people before politics, because this afternoon he has put politics before people?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly what I am doing; the best hope we can give to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is to say that we are putting them first by being honest about the problems and by tackling the mediocrity that has been a feature of too many hospitals for too long.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Bereaved families in Thurrock have had their pain compounded by how the Basildon and Thurrock trust has investigated complaints and incidents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which hospitals investigate such incidents is an important aspect of the transparency and accountability agenda?

Jeremy Hunt: It is, and this year we will be introducing in law a duty of candour that will make it a criminal offence for boards not to be honest, not only with families if patients have been harmed, but with the system, which is extremely important. Salford Royal hospital has one of the most successful safety records in the country, and it has achieved that by creating an atmosphere of trust so that front-line staff are not afraid to speak out about the problems that they encounter, however junior they are. It takes outstanding leadership to get that right, and part of the turning point that we require today is an understanding of what is involved in such leadership, which we need in many more places.

Jim Shannon: High mortality rates are unacceptable and their effect on people’s confidence in, and satisfaction with, the NHS is a problem. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate that there have not been such disclosures, but it is important that lessons can be learned. Does the Secretary of State intend to share the data and findings with regions of the United Kingdom and the devolved Administration in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Jeremy Hunt: When there are excess mortality rates, there is some controversy about exactly how many avoidable deaths they correspond to, which is why Professor Keogh has asked Professor Nick Black and Lord Darzi to carry out a further study to try better to understand the link between excess mortality and avoidable deaths. We will be happy to share that information with the devolved Administrations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate as many remaining colleagues as I can, but I point out to the House that I must have some regard to the Second Reading debate on the Defence Reform Bill, so economy in questions and answers is now of the essence.

John Stevenson: I welcome the Keogh report. Patients should come first and patient care should be at the centre of our health service. Over the past 10 years, sadly, there has been a clear lack of leadership and management at North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, so I am not surprised by the report. However, there is a possible solution to improve health care in north Cumbria: the acquisition of the hospitals by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. Will the Secretary of State work with me, the regulators and Northumbria to ensure that the acquisition proceeds as quickly as possible so that the people of Cumbria and Carlisle get the best possible health care?

Jeremy Hunt: I very much hope that that acquisition can proceed and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is the way forward. Although we have to ensure that that happens properly, Northumbria can give North Cumbria the leadership that it badly needs, so the process would be positive.

Barbara Keeley: Since the publication of the Francis report, it seems that we have been going round and round the question of safe staffing levels, which I have raised several times. Ratios of two nurses to 29 patients, or worse, have been reported to me—I do not think that they are uncommon—and the CQC tells us that one in 10 hospitals has unsafe staffing levels. It must be accepted that the number of nurses has reached unsafe levels in these 14 hospitals and many parts of the country. The Secretary of State cited Salford Royal hospital, but will he act now to ensure that all wards in all hospitals publicise their staffing ratios, because I would not want a relative on a ward with a ratio of 2:29?

Jeremy Hunt: The right ratio of patients to nurses depends on the type of patients in a ward, because different wards have different requirements. Salford Royal has a good model through which it ensures that it has the
	right number of nurses. As I said to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I accept what Francis says about safe staffing, but he did not recommend the Labour party’s policy of minimum mandated national staffing levels. I am following the recommendation of the Francis report, which I think is the right way forward.

Andrew Bingham: My constituents in Glossop use Tameside hospital. For too long, people such as Liz Degnen have highlighted their worries about Tameside, and the recent departure of its chief executive was called for and welcomed by several hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Keogh report is a vindication of many of my constituents’ long-held beliefs?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes it is, but I hope that we can give them confidence today that the problems will finally be addressed.

Jonathan Reynolds: I have welcomed the Keogh process from the beginning. Although the report on Tameside is hard hitting, I entirely welcome it—it is consistent with what has been in the public domain for two weeks—and the evidence that all Tameside MPs gave to Keogh to demand a change in leadership has been justified. Although I speak as a MP who has campaigned critically against his hospital, may I say that the tone and comments of the Secretary of State were neither helpful nor accurate with regard to Tameside? We need him to focus on implementing the reforms that are needed, one of which is clearly to deal with the inadequacy of the previous inspection regime. The extent of the scrutiny of these 14 trusts was great, but that is needed for all hospitals, so can he tell us what he will do to put that into effect?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely can. The new chief inspector of hospitals starts work today. We would like him to start the new inspection regime, adopting the same methodology as the Keogh review, as soon as possible, but it takes time to assemble a team of expert inspectors. He plans to start a pilot round of inspections this autumn before getting into full swing next year, and all the hospitals on today’s list will be inspected again within the next 12 months.

Heather Wheeler: My constituents use Burton trust, so it is a sad day when it is on the list. Will the Secretary of State help to ensure that no barrier is placed between MPs and hospital boards so that there is total transparency and local MPs can help the boards in the future?

Jeremy Hunt: That open relationship between hon. Members and their local NHS trusts is extremely important and useful. We all have to recognise that sometimes we have to speak up publicly when there are problems at our local NHS trust, because we have to represent our constituents, and that is part of the change due to this process. In the end, the most important thing is to give people confidence that, when there are problems, we are a Government who are committed to sorting them out.

Tom Blenkinsop: Page 22 of the Keogh report clearly states:
	“Contrary to the pre-visit data, when the review teams visited the hospitals, they found frequent examples of inadequate numbers
	of nursing staff in some ward areas. The reported data did not provide a true picture of the numbers of staff actually working on the wards.”
	It goes on to say that that
	“was compounded by an over-reliance on unregistered staff and temporary staff”.
	Given that the Government have sacked more than 1,000 people in front-line nursing roles in seven of the trusts involved, what conclusion does the Secretary of State draw from that paragraph?

Jeremy Hunt: It is funny how Labour Members like to accuse Government Members of making party political points, but then misrepresent the reality that there are 8,000 more clinical staff throughout the NHS than when their Government were in power.

Jeremy Lefroy: As my right hon. Friend says, transparency is vital. Stafford hospital has improved substantially since the spotlight was shone on it, although we are not complacent at all. One of the real problems we face is that good clinicians avoid management positions. What plans does he have to encourage young clinicians to undertake professional management training so that they can move into senior management positions in the course of their careers?

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks wisely, because we know a key point is that we need more good clinicians to go into management positions throughout the NHS. I am in close discussions with the NHS leadership academy, which this Government set up, to determine what more can be done to guarantee that able clinicians who pass muster and go into management can get a job at the end of that process. In addition, we have to encourage people to go into challenging trusts, rather than always being attracted to the best trusts. Such a change has been managed in the schools system, so we need to achieve that in health as well.

Ian Austin: I supported the inquiry and worked hard to provide details from Russells Hall patients and relatives, and to arrange for them to meet Sir Bruce’s team. Although the hospital has not been put into special measures, there are clearly areas of concern because people are waiting longer for A and E than in 2010, infection rates have increased and staff morale has gone down. The report cites
	“Inadequate qualified nurse staffing levels on some wards”.
	The Secretary of State said that if staffing levels were the problem, he would sort that out, so what assurances can he give people in Dudley and the staff at Russells Hall that he is going to address those inadequate nurse staffing levels?

Jeremy Hunt: The same assurances I have given everyone else representing a hospital with troubles: we are totally committed to sorting out those problems—[Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers ask when, but we have said that these hospitals will be re-inspected in the next year. The structures that we are putting in place to sort them out are a million times tougher than anything that happened when they were in office.

Andrew Percy: I am proud of our local NHS, especially the examples of good practice highlighted at Goole hospital. However, as someone who works as a volunteer in the NHS every
	weekend, I meet patients who are frightened of going into local hospitals precisely because of the failings highlighted in the report on North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust. Will the Secretary of State visit Goole and north Lincolnshire to meet my constituents and discuss such individuals as an 88-year-old whose nails were not cut for seven months, whose toilet calls went unanswered and who ultimately died after contracting E.coli in our local hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s local hospital. I am sure there will be a great deal that I can learn, and I hope I will be able to give encouragement to the staff there, who are working very hard in a very difficult situation. I hope today will give them encouragement that this is a Government who are determined to turn around their hospital.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On the basis of the very good and welcome Keogh report and also the Francis recommendations on safe staffing levels, does the Secretary of State feel that the reduction of 4,000 nurses over the past two or three years is in any way contributing to the very issues that he has described today?

Jeremy Hunt: We welcome and accept the Francis report’s recommendations on safe staffing and we recognise that that involves having doctors. We recognise and are pleased that our protection of the NHS budget means that there are 6,000 more doctors than when the hon. Gentleman’s Government were in power. If he looks at what is happening in his own Wales, he might find that there are a few lessons that the NHS in Wales could learn.

David Tredinnick: Sadly, the problems at George Eliot hospital go back well over a decade, so these special measures will be very welcome, but is not one of my right hon. Friend’s fundamental problems dealing with a culture of secrecy, where in the past a board with a problem would talk to a strategic health authority board and nobody would know what was going on? Is not sunlight the best disinfectant?

Jeremy Hunt: It is, absolutely. That is the big change. My hon. Friend speaks wisely. That is the big change that we have to make in our NHS. When there is failure, we must be open about it. It has to be public—we have to keep the public in the picture, because that is the best way of putting pressure on the system and on the politicians to make sure that they sort it out. That is not what happened before; it is going to happen now.

Charlotte Leslie: Does the Secretary of State share my dismay that just as Julie Bailey was hounded out of Mid Staffs by the local Labour party for revealing the truth, some of the tone of this debate—accusations, sanctimoniousness and false victimhood—is a very tangible illustration of what whistleblowers have had to face for the past decade when they have tried to get the truth out? What a tangible demonstration, sadly, this has been.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. If some of those on the Opposition Benches knew exactly what Julie Bailey had to go through to expose the truth of what happened at Mid Staffs, they might think again about some of their behaviour this afternoon.

Philip Hollobone: Although proud of our local hospital, residents in Kettering will be pleased that Sir Bruce has managed to expose some dangerously run parts of the NHS, but they will be concerned to know what can be done to make the future far better than what has happened in the past.

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely, and the big point about the changes that we are bringing in—I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a huge supporter of Kettering hospital, which he and I have visited together—is that the NHS in many ways is no different from other parts of our public services: there are excellent bits and there are bits where there is poor leadership. What we have to do if we are to sort out the poor leadership is to expose it and to make sure that the public know about it and the politicians cannot duck sorting it out. My hon. Friend’s constituents will be thinking, as a result of tomorrow’s headlines, “What about Kettering hospital?” That is why we will have an independent chief inspector who will go round and tell them how good Kettering hospital is. However much they love it, he may well find things that need to be improved, and my hon. Friend and his constituents will welcome that.

David Morris: Last week it was the CQC. Now it turns out that between 2005 and 2010 there were 386 separate warnings that the last Labour Secretary of State claims never to have received, yet the trust in my area was given foundation status. Does my right hon. Friend agree that given the new revelation by Sir Brian Jarman on suppression of warnings, along with existing allegations of spin and cover-up levelled against a former Secretary of State for Health, it is now time for the right hon. Gentleman to resign?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a matter for the leader of the Labour party. What concerns me most is that the Opposition do not understand the fundamental policy mistakes they made which led to the entrenched culture of failure in too much of our hospital sector.

Nigel Mills: Those of my constituents who use King’s Mill hospital will understandably be concerned about their future treatment. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that this summer those patients will get the treatment that they rightly expect?

Jeremy Hunt: It is important to recognise that even at the hospitals that we are talking about this afternoon, there is good care happening every single day. The way that we will reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents is by having an independent inspection system which has not existed before, where regulators are not leaned on by Ministers to say the right thing in the run-up to elections. It is only when his constituents have confidence in that regulatory system that they will know the truth about their own hospital, and we want them to get there as soon as possible.

Neil Carmichael: I welcome Sir Bruce’s report and the Secretary of State’s robust approach to it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we take away the right lessons from the statement and the questions on it, that will be the catalyst for a change of culture,
	enhancing transparency and accountability and introducing a new pace of response for the changes necessary to bring about higher standards in our hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: We do need to draw those lessons, and the sad lesson from this afternoon is that that change in culture with respect to transparency and accountability does not extend to the Labour party. Voters will notice how unwilling Labour Members are to accept that things went wrong on their patch.

Andrew Stephenson: Given what today’s report says about capacity issues at Blackburn hospital, and that the hospital is struggling to deal with the number of patients, serious questions again have to be asked about the decision to downgrade Burnley hospital’s accident and emergency department under the previous Government in 2007, which was consistently supported by the shadow Secretary of State when he was in office. Will my right hon. Friend visit Pendle to meet some of the affected families to reassure them that lessons have been learned from the mistakes of the past?

Jeremy Hunt: I will be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s hospital, as well as those of many colleagues. I am sure I will learn a great deal when I do so.

Stephen Metcalfe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having put patients first in the whole process. As we move forward, we should approach the failures of the past more in sorrow than in anger, but we have to accept that that is a hard ask for my constituents who potentially have lost loved ones because of the catastrophic failures of the past inspection regime. That is why my constituents are impatient for change. If hospitals do not make the changes necessary in the required time, what sanctions will be imposed?

Jeremy Hunt: The entire system will be accountable for making sure that change is delivered. That is part of the change that we are making through the statement this afternoon. My hon. Friend’s hospital will be inspected again within the next 12 months and we will be able to see what progress has been made. There will be further independent inspections after that, so his constituents will have confidence that an independent expert is casting an eye over the health care that they are receiving and telling them the unvarnished truth about whether they can trust it or not.

Points of Order

Ian Austin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope it will be a point of order, rather than a point of mischief—I have known the hon. Gentleman for 30 years—but we will hear it.

Ian Austin: The Secretary of State has said repeatedly, and just a moment ago for the final time, that Members on the Opposition Benches had not supported a culture of transparency in the NHS, yet during these questions he has heard Member after Member, including myself, saying that we supported the inquiry, we provided details to it, we arranged meetings for our constituents—[Interruption.] What advice can you provide so that he does not come here and mislead the House in this way again? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am perfectly capable of handling these matters without any sedentary interjections from hon. Members on either side of the Chamber. The first thing the hon. Gentleman must do is to withdraw the accusation of misleading the House, which is an unparliamentary accusation. If he wants to use another word, he may, but he must not accuse a Member of misleading the House. I ask him to withdraw.

Ian Austin: Yes. What the Secretary of State said is clearly not supported by the facts, but I am happy to withdraw the word that you have asked me to withdraw. I withdraw the word.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing that word. Beyond that we need not go today. I thank him for that.

Debbie Abrahams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister made very misleading statements about the impact of welfare reform—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that any misleading statements were made in this House. Can she just be clear that she is not saying that?

Debbie Abrahams: Not in this House.

Mr Speaker: Right. If the hon. Lady has a point of order, let us hear it briefly.

Debbie Abrahams: Misleading statements were made, not in this House, but in relation to Government business. The Government have been rebuked on a number of occasions, for example by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, for making misleading remarks. It is unparliamentary behaviour. What action can be taken?

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply say to the hon. Lady that, although I understand that emotions on these matters are extremely highly charged, where there are
	references to conduct outside the Chamber, by definition the matter is not parliamentary and, therefore, there can be no question of the Chair being expected properly to rule on the matter. She has made her wider point and it is on the record. I think that we must leave it there for today.
	If there are no further points of order, we now come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has been exceptionally patiently waiting.

Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the definitions of victims and survivors for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and related legislation; and for connected purposes.
	The current definition of a victim and survivor in Northern Ireland, and specifically the definition contained in the 2006 Order, is a matter of controversy and is not accepted by the vast majority of innocent victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. Why is it unacceptable? In every conflict there are two sides, but in the case of Northern Ireland the previous Government determined that anyone affected by the troubles, either through the loss of a loved one or through psychological trauma or physical injury, would be defined as a victim and survivor. In effect, that means that innocent victims are equated with those who joined illegal terrorist organisations and went out to commit murder and destruction in Northern Ireland, and indeed in other parts of the United Kingdom, because I am minded that not all the victims of terrorist violence relating to Northern Ireland were in Northern Ireland. One thinks of the victims of outrages in Birmingham, Manchester, here in London, in Guildford and in Brighton, where the IRA sought to murder the Prime Minister of the day and members of her Cabinet. That was an act not only of terrorism, but of treason under the law of the United Kingdom.
	The reality is that today in Northern Ireland the people who perpetrated those acts of terrorism, whether republican or loyalist, or of any other affiliation, if they were injured during the troubles, or if through an act of their own commission they were subjected to psychological trauma or physical injury, are regarded as a victim and survivor for the purposes of the current legislation. I believe that is simply morally indefensible. It is deeply hurtful to the innocent victims on both sides in Northern Ireland, because we are talking about not only IRA atrocities, but those committed by loyalists. The notion that those who went out with guns and bombs to take innocent life are defined under the current legislation as victims and survivors is just plain wrong.
	I will give one example. The notorious Shankill bomb was exploded by the provisional IRA outside a butcher’s shop in the heart of Belfast on a busy Saturday afternoon. Many innocent people lost their lives that day as a result, but the bomber, Thomas Begley, was also killed. Yet under the definition of a victim and survivor, Thomas Begley, who murdered nine innocent people that day, is regarded as a victim. I believe that is unacceptable.
	Imagine the outcry there would be if the Government were to introduce legislation determining that those who planted bombs on the London underground and on buses here in our capital city, murdering innocent people, are the same as those they murdered and should be regarded as such under the law. Imagine the outcry there would be in this city. Yet in Belfast and in my home city of Lisburn the victims have to put up with that reality.
	That has significant consequences, for example in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. A few years ago the Eames-Bradley report put forward proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past, one of which was that there should be a recognition payment for the families of those who were killed during the troubles. Under the definition of a victim and survivor, the same recognition payment would go to the families of IRA and loyalist terrorists as would go to the families of the innocent victims. Consequently, on that issue alone the Eames-Bradley report fell. This has significant consequences for how we deal with the past in Northern Ireland.
	Therefore, given that primary legislation is involved, not least the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which sets the broad parameters of the peace process and implementing agreements, we in this House ought to deal with this situation by amending the Act. We ought to address the hurt felt by innocent victims in Northern Ireland who feel that it is wrong that someone who pulled a trigger or planted a bomb is treated in the same way by the definition as their innocent victims.
	To support that contention, let me quote from an e-mail I received yesterday from one of those innocent victims, Ann Travers, who has become quite prominent recently by speaking out on victims issues and who happened to become aware that I would be asking for leave to bring in a Bill today. She wrote:
	“On the 8th April 1984 the IRA murdered my 23 year old sister Mary and attempted to murder my father”—
	he was a judge—
	“shooting him 6 times and attempted to murder my mother by holding a gun to her head, only for it to jam twice, while my family were walking home from mass. I was 14 at the time and this evil incident has affected my whole life. The men and woman who woke up that Sunday and chose to go out to murder can not be considered victims in the same sense as my sister, my parents, my brothers and myself. It is bizarre that we equate the perpetrators
	of murder along with their victims in Northern Ireland. After our sister’s murder, neither my brothers nor myself chose to get revenge by joining an illegal organisation. To put it in the simplest terms, imagine the following scenario: my family is attacked by the IRA, the gunman shoots Mary in the back, an RUC land rover pulls up and a policeman shoots the IRA gunman in the back. Is he a victim in the same sense as my unarmed sister? In my opinion, he is not. By his own free will and choice he created victims in both my family and his own. It is time, in my opinion, that all innocent victims are given the consideration and respect that they deserve.”
	I can put it no more eloquently.
	I believe that it is a travesty that in Northern Ireland those who went out with murder in their hearts to destroy innocent life are regarded as victims for the purposes of legislation and equated with those innocent people who were cut down in cold blood on our streets, and I include in that the courageous men and women who served in our armed forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the emergency services, and put their lives at risk. They, too, are innocent victims along with the many civilians murdered in the course of the troubles.
	In presenting this Bill, I ask the House to give careful consideration to these issues, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give leave for the Bill to proceed. This is an injustice that needs to be addressed. I recognise that there must be input from others on this matter, but we cannot allow this travesty to continue unchecked.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson, Mr Nigel Dodds, Bob Stewart, Kate Hoey, Lady Hermon, Dr William McCrea, Mr Gregory Campbell, Philip Davies, David Simpson, Mr David Nuttall, Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
	Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November, and to be printed (Bill 92).

Defence Reform Bill

[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2012-13, Defence Acquisition, HC 9, and the Government response, HC 73]
	Second Reading

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of our national interests must be the priority of any Government. The brave men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job, and I am sure all Members of the House will wish to pay tribute to their dedication, and to the sacrifices they make not only on operations but, as the tragic events in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend reminded us, on a daily basis.
	The armed forces can perform their vital role only if we provide them with the capabilities they need to operate effectively and safely. We have a duty to them to ensure they have the tools they need in terms of manpower, training, equipment and logistical support. At the same time, we must deal with the black hole we inherited in the defence budget, and the Ministry of Defence has had to contribute its share to the broader challenge of correcting the public sector structural deficit.

Jim Murphy: I wish to respond not to the Secretary of State’s discordant point but to address his earlier comment and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition wholeheartedly share the expression of sympathy offered by the Secretary of State about events in Brecon. I know there are limits to what he can say at this early stage because it is subject to a police inquiry, but can he share any more details with the House about his understanding of those tragic events? In particular, there have been suggestions that training regimes may recently have been altered as part of efforts to boost the number of reservists, but I suspect that they are unfounded. Will he say what he feels he can say at this early stage?

Philip Hammond: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get to the bottom of this matter—as do we all—but he is right that there is little I can say. An inquiry by Dyfed-Powys police is under way, and when it is complete there will be a service inquiry into the events of last weekend. We will get to the bottom of what happened, and if there are systemic lessons to be learned, we will learn them. I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that once the inquiry is complete, I will report to the House in an appropriate way.
	The need to address the public sector structural deficit and the deficit in the defence budget has meant tough decisions and a relentless focus on squeezing more capability out of what remains the world’s fourth largest defence budget.

John Baron: My right hon. Friend talked, quite rightly, about the first duty of government, but he will be aware that some of us on the Government Benches are concerned that misguided Army reserve plans will throw up false economies and unacceptable capability gaps. Given that the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%, will he explain
	how we are trying to plug a gap from the loss of 20,000 regular troops with only 30,000 reservists? A 40% figure would suggest that we need nearer 50,000.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend’s view on this matter is well known. Two weeks ago the Government set out robust proposals in a White Paper, “Future Reserves 2020.” I am confident we will be able to deliver the force we have set out, and that that force will support the level of ambition for deployment set out in the strategic defence and security review 2010.

Nick Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Philip Hammond: I will take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.

Nick Smith: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the annual recruitment targets for reservists for each remaining year of this Parliament?

Philip Hammond: I suspect the hon. Gentleman is referring to figures that were put in the public domain last year before this process was fully under way. I have said to the House that I will be transparent about recruitment and trained-strength targets. Later this year we intend to begin publishing quarterly figures, and we will set out the expected forward trajectory at the same time. As I said the week before last, and will say again now, the path will not be smooth and there will be some lumpiness in it. The structural changes we are making in the regular Army and the Army Reserve will have an impact at the front end, but in the long run it will support the growth of reserves that we all seek.
	Eliminating waste and inefficiency in our procurement systems, and making best use of the skills available, whether they are in the public or private sector, or indeed in the regular or reserve forces, are at the heart of our plan for sustainable and effective defence in times of austerity. The Government have set about transforming the way that defence is managed and delivered. Starting with the strategic defence and security review in 2010, we have looked hard at how we can carry out our activity to see whether it can be improved. As part of that process, my predecessor asked Lord Levene of Portsoken to conduct an in-depth review into every aspect of how we manage defence, and we are well advanced in implementing the changes he recommended.
	Ensuring our forces have the right equipment, delivered on time, is essential if we are to maintain our capabilities in the future, and ensuring we do that cost-effectively is critical if we are to sustain them. Making full use of the expertise and skills of our reserve forces is crucial if we are to meet the security challenges that we face with smaller regular forces. In most areas, we are able to deliver defence transformation through changing the way we are organised and the way we do things in the Ministry of Defence. In two areas—procurement and the use of reserves—primary legislation is required to complete the programme.

Kate Green: I am glad that the Secretary of State is about to expand on procurement. Will he confirm that in securing a reliable and cost-effective supply of equipment, there will be
	open competition for a wide range of suppliers—including those such as Joseph Gleave & Son in my constituency, which has supplied the Department for many years—and that the Government procurement model will not squeeze out smaller businesses that have been supplying in the past.

Philip Hammond: The Government have a focused initiative to increase participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence supply chain. Such businesses provide a tremendously important part of our defence resilience. Because they are often buried in complex supply chains led by a large prime contractor, their contribution is not always noticed as much as it should be, but they are an important part of the equation. I will come later to the balance between open competitive procurement and single-source procurement, which is at the heart of part 2.
	The Bill has three main parts. Parts 1 and 2 deal with defence procurement and part 3 deals with our reserve forces. Turning first to procurement, I think that few in this House would not agree that the way in which we develop, specify, procure and support defence equipment can and must be improved. We have already made significant progress, but we recognise that fundamental change is needed if we are to sustain that progress and to deliver the equipment that the armed forces need and the value for money that the public are entitled to expect. Now is the time to make those changes.
	For decades, our defence equipment programme has suffered from poor time and cost forecasting and poor project and programme management, leading to delays, cost overruns and specification failures. We have to address these issues by challenging the pattern of incentives and behaviours once and for all. That is why, after success on military operations, my priority as Defence Secretary has been to establish, for the first time, a fully costed and deliverable 10-year equipment plan. This has now been achieved and published. Our armed forces now have the certainty that the equipment they are expecting has been both planned for and is properly funded. However, if we are to deliver this programme consistently and to entrench a better method of working to provide a better service to the front line in future, we need fundamentally to reform our defence acquisition processes and structures.
	The previous Government were of course aware of this problem. Towards the end of their time in office, they commissioned the independent report by Bernard Gray into the acquisition process. That report found serious structural and cultural problems in the way in which we procure defence equipment. We have considered carefully its analysis and the options available for reform of Defence Equipment and Support. My predecessor appointed its author as Chief of Defence Matériel, with a remit to take the reform agenda forward. The results of that work are set out in the White Paper, “Better defence acquisition”, which I published on 10 June this year.
	Our preference is to transform the existing Defence Equipment and Support organisation into a Government-owned, contractor-operated organisation—a GoCo. We believe that this model is the one most likely to embed and sustain the significant behavioural change required
	to transform defence acquisition. However, belief alone is not enough, and we will test this proposition through a commercial competition and against a public sector comparator. If, at the end of this rigorous evaluation process, a GoCo is assessed to be the best-value-for-money option, a private sector partner will be appointed to manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will be a radical change, but not quite as radical as some of the more lurid headlines have suggested.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his compelling speech and for giving way. May I ask him about the timetable for the process he has outlined? When will these things actually happen?

Philip Hammond: We expect to reach a decision point in the commercial process next spring. If we go down the route of appointing a GoCo, we expect the GoCo operator to be appointed late in 2014 or at the very beginning of 2015.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining what is happening with the GoCo. A number of international companies would be interested in applying to run it. Is there any requirement that it needs to be run by a British company, or would it be open to tenders from across the world?

Philip Hammond: The proposition is that a GoCo would be a UK-registered and domiciled company paying its taxes in the UK, but we expect that its shareholders will include international partner firms. The GoCo that runs the Atomic Weapons Establishment includes three non-UK companies in its shareholder register, and I see no reason to expect that the result of this competition would be different. We would expect British and non-British companies to be involved in the ownership, but the GoCo itself will be a British company.

Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are concerns among those in industry that their intellectual property may not be protected. Given that there is a very high degree of competition between the United States and the United Kingdom, the admission of a US company into the inner workings of the British Ministry of Defence across a wide range of areas would not be the same as the co-operation on the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where the United States and the United Kingdom are completely in agreement.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will have thought very carefully about these matters. Of course, this goes to the heart of the deliberations that we have been having. We are confident that we can put in place a model that will protect intellectual property—an issue to which I shall return.

Gisela Stuart: On a similar theme, what have been the discussions with the United States about the transfer of classified information in this context?

Philip Hammond: I shall talk about confidential information later in my speech. DE&S has access to certain confidential information at the moment. The arrangements will
	provide for the GoCo to have access to that confidential information under a regime that retains its confidentiality and ensures that it will be maintained. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall address that very shortly.
	If, at the end of the evaluation process that I have described, a GoCo is assessed to be the best-value-for-money option, a private sector partner will be appointed to manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. As I said, this will be a radical change, but not quite as radical as some have suggested. The GoCo will always act as the Secretary of State’s agent. All contracts entered into will continue to be in the Secretary of State’s name, and strategic governance will be provided by a governance function that will remain within the MOD. The GoCo’s customers will be the front-line commands and the MOD itself; it will work to their agenda and their priorities. I can therefore assure the House that this is absolutely not about handing over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to a private company and leaving it to decide what kit to buy for our armed forces.
	The commercial competition is under way, and we expect it to be completed by spring next year. In parallel, we are developing a robust public sector comparator, which we call DE&S plus, that will explore how far it is possible to go in reforming the organisation, making the maximum use of freedoms and flexibilities that we can negotiate within the public sector. If, at the end of this process, the GoCo model is indeed the chosen option, legislation needs to be in place so that we can move quickly to sign a contract with the successful bidder once a final decision is made.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State might address point this later, but how does he envisage that the GoCo will be accountable to Parliament? Would it appear in front of the Public Accounts Committee or the Defence Committee?

Philip Hammond: The Secretary of State will remain accountable to Parliament, but we expect that the GoCo will have an accounting officer, probably its chief executive officer, who will therefore be liable to be called before the Public Accounts Committee.
	Part 1 of the Bill sets out the provisions and safeguards necessary to underpin the operation of a GoCo. The most important element of almost any organisation is its people, and the smooth transfer of the DE&S work force to the GoCo operating company will be vital to its future success. The Bill confirms that the initial transfer of civil servants would be covered by the TUPE regulations. By virtue of being a contractor-operated entity, the GoCo would have considerable freedoms, particularly relating to its ability to recruit and reward its staff at market rates—freedoms that are not usually available to public sector bodies. The Bill confirms that in its activities on behalf of the Secretary of State it will enjoy certain statutory immunities and exemptions that are currently enjoyed by the Crown—for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
	In addition to those freedoms, we also need to put in place a number of safeguards to protect Government and taxpayer interests. Therefore, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to create a scheme to transfer the business to another contractor or, in extremis,
	back to the MOD, should that prove necessary. The Bill also provides for the Ministry of Defence police to have clear jurisdiction to investigate any offences that may relate to defence work carried out by contractors. It also makes provision to allow the Secretary of State to disclose information that he has received in confidence to a contractor, and to authorise the use of intellectual property. Clause 7 and schedule 2 put in place appropriate safeguards to prevent the unauthorised use or disclosure of confidential information by either the GoCo or its employees.
	I am determined to drive a step change in the way in which the MOD carries out its defence procurement business, and to do so rapidly. The gradual erosion of skills and capability in the organisation over recent years cannot be allowed to continue if we are to ensure the MOD’s ability to deliver equipment to the front line. The measures in part 1 of the Bill will allow us to make the transition to a GoCo at the conclusion of the commercial competition, subject, of course, to the bids representing value for money for the taxpayer.
	Part 2 relates to single-source procurement. Open competition remains the best way of ensuring value for taxpayers’ money. However, sometimes there is only a single provider of a capability we require, such as nuclear propulsion units. Sometimes the need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or sovereign control of the intellectual property in equipment programmes requires us to place contracts with UK companies without a competitive process. European Union public procurement regulations specifically allow this for military equipment.
	This so-called single-source procurement typically accounts for about 45%—about £6 billion a year—of the total that the MOD spends on defence equipment and support, and it is likely to remain at that level for at least the next decade or so. Clearly, in the absence of the disciplines of the marketplace there needs to be a set of rules governing single-source procurement in order to ensure proper protection for the taxpayers’ interest.
	The MOD currently uses a framework for single-source procurement that has remained largely unchanged for the past 45 years—the so-called “yellow book”. Under this system, which is voluntary, the profit that contractors can earn is fixed, but there are few if any incentives for them to reduce costs. Clearly, this does not serve the best interests of the taxpayer and neither does it help industry to maintain a competitive focus that will allow it to succeed in export markets. It is therefore in the interests of both the MOD customer and its industrial suppliers to create a framework with incentives for efficient and competitive behaviour.
	In 2011 the Government commissioned Lord Currie of Marylebone to undertake an independent review of the yellow book. He recommended a new framework based on transparency, with much stronger supplier efficiency incentives and underpinned by more robust governance arrangements. Based on his recommendations and following extensive consultations with our major single-source suppliers, we have developed a framework that will be introduced through regulations provided for in part 2 of the Bill. At its core is the principle that industry gets a fair profit in exchange for providing the MOD with transparency on costs and the protections we need to ensure value for money. It will align the MOD and industry by allowing additional profit to be earned through delivery of defined efficiencies, sharing
	the benefits between industry and the taxpayer. A statutory basis for the regime will ensure widespread coverage across our single-source supply base and allow application of the regime throughout the single-source supply chain.
	To police the new framework we will create a small, arm’s length body, to be known as the single source regulations office, with approximately 30 staff. Its role will be to keep the statutory framework under review and to monitor adherence to it. It will replace an existing non-departmental public body that has little power other than to oversee a voluntary framework that can be amended only by consensus. The existing regime has failed to evolve to reflect changing circumstances, largely because either party can block any change that it regards as contrary to its own interests.
	The single source regulations office will ensure that we do not have to wait another 45 years to update the regime. It will be a source of expert advice to the Secretary of State and it will also act as expert adjudicator in disputes between the MOD and our single-source suppliers. Crucially, it will advise the Secretary of State on the setting of key profit rates for single-source contracts.
	Critical to ensuring that the MOD is able to negotiate prices that are fair and reasonable to both suppliers and taxpayers is the generation of better quality and more standardised cost data. Therefore, regulations enabled by this Bill will introduce a requirement for standard reports throughout the life of single-source contracts worth more than £5 million, allowing the MOD to build up a database against which future pricing assumptions can be judged and on the basis of which more robust, long-term cost forecasts can be made.
	On contracts above £50 million, suppliers will also have to provide quarterly contract reports to support effective contract management, report any relevant events and deliver information about their overhead costs, allowing us better to align the industrial capacity the MOD is paying for with our long-term capability requirements. Clause 25 also creates a power for the MOD to gain access to suppliers’ records.
	In order to ensure that suppliers fulfil their reporting and transparency obligations, the Bill includes a compliance regime. Failure to provide the required information on a timely basis will result in a penalty being applied under a civil penalty regime. Penalties will vary with the value of the contract and the single source regulations office will act as the appeal body for the compliance regime.
	We recognise that we are requiring our suppliers to provide unprecedented levels of sensitive commercial information that would be of great value to their competitors or to market analysts. We need this information to ensure we get value for money on what is a significant proportion of defence spending, but obtaining proprietary information by statute imposes on Government a duty to secure its proper protection. In order to ensure that the increased level of transparency and reporting we require is not subject to abuse, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information obtained under the new single source framework, such as forecast financial performance and investment or rationalisation plans.
	Given that confidential and commercially sensitive information is already exempt from freedom of information requests, we do not think it will be necessary to bar
	release under the Freedom of Information Act in order to protect the information. However, I am clear about our obligation to our suppliers in respect of their sensitive information and the Bill creates an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to invoke a full statutory bar on disclosure under FOI if the routine exemptions prove inadequate to protect the exceptional level of information that we are requiring to be disclosed to us.

Julian Brazier: The framework being described by my right hon. Friend is largely welcome, but it seems odd that it is being applied to only part 2 and the 45% spent on single-source procurement. Many of us support in principle the idea of the GoCo, but introducing more commercial entities to the organisation that buys the other 55% of the kit could expose more commercial-in-confidence material to outside bodies than would be the case under a single-source supplier.

Philip Hammond: I assure my hon. Friend that the arrangements for our relationship with the GoCo, which will be largely contractual but partly regulatory, will also protect confidential information and make appropriate arrangements for the use of intellectual property held by the Secretary of State. I am dealing with the specific regime that will apply to part 2 contracts with single-source suppliers.
	The new single-source regime will incentivise efficiency in operating costs and the minimisation of overheads. It will align the interests of the MOD and its suppliers, and support the competitiveness of the UK defence industry in both domestic and foreign markets.
	Finally, I turn to the third part of the Bill, which relates to our reserve forces.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State because he has given way many times. Before he turns to the reserves, may I ask him about defence research? As he will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and I feel strongly that we are not spending enough on defence research in this country. How does he see the protection of that important base being secured? Will it be handed over to the GoCo? What will be the regime to govern research?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend knows well, because he was a Minister at the time, that we made a commitment that a fixed minimum percentage of the defence budget will be spent on research and development. That is a matter of policy and such matters will remain for the MOD to determine. If a GoCo is appointed, it will execute policy, not make policy. I am happy to give him that reassurance.
	Our reserves make an essential contribution to delivering the nation’s security at home and overseas. They are a valuable and highly valued part of our armed forces who work alongside their regular counterparts to deliver our military capability. Earlier this month, I published a White Paper that signalled a step change in the offer that we make to individual reservists and their employers. It set out a range of measures to revitalise the reserve forces and reverse the decline of the recent past, including paid annual leave and pension entitlements in respect of training days, access to key defence health services, greater predictability of reservists’ liability for call-out and a £500 per month per reservist award to small and
	medium-sized enterprises when their reservist employees are mobilised. There will also be substantially improved equipment and training opportunities.

Helen Goodman: I asked the Secretary of State a parliamentary written question because the centre in Bishop Auckland in my constituency is to close. I asked what that will save the Government. Instead of answering the question, I received the information that the Government are investing £8 million in the reserve estate. I would like to give him another opportunity to answer the question. How much is being saved? Quite honestly, if nothing is being saved, do not close it.

Philip Hammond: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House for my statement on the reserves. If she thinks that closing Army Reserve bases is about saving money, she has the wrong end of the stick. It is about delivering the commitments that we have made to the Army Reserve about training, equipment and proper organisation. It is about reflecting the changes in the regular Army and our commitment that reserve units will be paired with regular Army units.
	I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s specific question at the Dispatch Box, but I will write to her. The vast majority of sites from which we are withdrawing Territorial Army or Army Reserve activity will remain because they house cadet units that will continue, so that is likely to be the case. This is not about saving money; it is about organising the reserve forces in a way that allows them to make their vital contribution to Future Force 2020.
	The White Paper details a comprehensive package of changes that will allow us to create the integrated regular reserve force of the future. A small number of the planned changes require primary legislation. The first of those is the renaming of the Territorial Army. The TA was founded in 1908 and has served this country superbly in peace and in war. However, today’s TA soldiers have a function that is far wider and more important than the original home defence role envisaged by Haldane. As we reshape the Army—regulars and reserves—for the 21st century, it is right that we change the name of the TA to the “Army Reserve” better to reflect its future role. The Bill also provides for the consequential renaming of the Army’s ex-regular reserve force as the “Regular Reserve”.
	Reflecting the integral role that reservists will play in almost all future military operations, the Bill extends the powers to mobilise reservists across all three services. Under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, reservists can be mobilised only under specific circumstances. The Bill will enable reservists to be mobilised for the full range of tasks that the armed forces may be asked to undertake.

Bob Stewart: This is just a small point, but I recall that the Territorial Army was deployed to the 1st British Corps of the British Army of the Rhine, so it has not dealt just with home defence.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The role of the Territorial Army has evolved and it will evolve further. My point was that when Haldane introduced it in 1908 by consolidating the county militias, he had in mind a home or territorial defence role, which the name reflects. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that the role that the TA has played over the years has been substantially greater than the role envisaged for it originally.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns over the possibility of employment discrimination against reservists. The Bill provides improved employment protection by allowing a right of access to the employment tribunal without a qualifying employment period for an unfair dismissal claim where the dismissal relates to the employee’s reserve service. Separately, there is already a criminal offence of dismissal because of call-out for reserve service.
	However, we recognise that there is a perception among many reservists that they are disadvantaged in the workplace by their reserve service. We believe that the changes that we have set out in the White Paper will greatly improve relations between reservists and their employers, but we take the issue of discrimination against reservists very seriously. We have established a webpage through which reservists can report incidents of perceived discrimination and we will investigate them. If we find that there is a case for further action, we will take it. We will consider whether further measures may be taken in the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, which is due to be introduced in this House in 2015.

James Arbuthnot: I am delighted with what my right hon. Friend has just said. Will he consider, among the further measures that might be taken, action to help reservists who find that their promotion is held back by their being in the reserve forces?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That example fits exactly into the category of discrimination in the workplace. We must look objectively at the examples that we are given to establish whether they constitute actual and systemic discrimination against reservists, rather than mere perceptions. The timescale that we have set out is appropriate. We have set up the webpage and are starting the process now. In 2015, when the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill is introduced, the time will be right to analyse the information that we have received and to consider what action is appropriate.
	The support of employers is crucial to delivering our future reserve forces, and we seek to strengthen the reservists and the MOD’s relationship with them. The White Paper set out a range of measures to deliver a sea change in those relationships. While small and medium-sized enterprises will benefit from all of the measures, I have acknowledged previously that reserve service can have a particular impact on them as a result of their scale. Therefore, by amending clause 44 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow the introduction of a financial award of £500 per month per reservist for SMEs when any of their reservist employees is mobilised, we will target additional resources at this sector and explicitly recognise the additional impact SMEs may have to absorb when a reservist employee is mobilised.
	The measures in part 3 support the package of proposals set out in the White Paper. They will ensure that we have the well-trained, well-equipped and integrated reserve forces we need, which are able to deploy with their regular counterparts as part of Future Force 2020.
	The driver for change running through the Bill is the requirement to deliver the capabilities our armed forces need while ensuring value for money for taxpayers, whether that is through better procurement or more efficient and effective use of the reserves. The measures
	contained within it allow fundamental change to how we procure our military equipment, and ensure that we will be able to make full use of our reserve forces in the future.
	Whatever else we may disagree on, all of us in this House place the utmost importance on properly equipping and supporting our armed forces. The Bill will ensure that we can be confident of our ability to do so in the future. I hope the measures will command widespread support, and that we will be able to take them forward through this House and the other place on a consensual basis. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jim Murphy: Like the whole House, I listened intently to the Secretary of State’s necessarily detailed analysis of the specific points he announced in advocating the Bill. At the start of his speech he reflected on the tragedy in Brecon, and I associate the Opposition with his comments. After the controversy relating to today’s Health statement, I wish—I suspect to your satisfaction, Mr Deputy Speaker—to seek a more consensual approach to the tone of our debate. The principles driving the reforms in the Bill have the potential to unite all parts of the House.
	Reform to defence procurement is vital to ensuring value for money, while upholding the highest possible standards and timely delivery of world-class equipment to our personnel. It is essential that increasing the number and enhancing the role of the reserve force be a success, in order to strengthen our front-line Army capability at a time when it has been subject to cutbacks. The Opposition’s aim is to ensure that these objectives are met through effective delivery, scrutinising the military as well as the financial implications of the Government’s proposals.
	On Government-owned contractor-operated procurement, it is crucial that defence procurement practices be modernised to serve both the front-line overseas and the bottom line back home. Both parties agree that some of the issues that have plagued defence procurement have been insufficiently tackled by successive Administrations. In all Governments, momentum on modernisation has been lost. Major projects such as Eurofighter-Typhoon have grown greatly in cost and have been delivered years late. The roots of that lay in the late Baroness Thatcher’s Administration, showing just how far back some of these issues go.
	Shared blame, however, is not as important as shared resolve, which is necessary to achieve meaningful reform. Such reform will come from greater professional project and programme management within Defence Equipment and Support, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes, and longer-term integration of military expertise.
	The Opposition are genuinely open-minded about the management structure that will deliver this change, which is why we accept the proposed legislation that will enable a GoCo model to be established. Supporting assessment of GoCo’s feasibility, however, is not the same as supporting its creation. The comparison between a GoCo and DE&S-plus, as it is inelegantly named, should, we believe, be based on the following principles.
	First, reform must strengthen value for money within programmes, with industry adhering to targets on time and on cost. Secondly, the chosen procurement management model must retain parliamentary accountability for decision making—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—so that oversight and scrutiny of multi-billion pound contracts is not hampered, but if possible enhanced. Thirdly, any change in management model must protect the rights of staff and engage with their trade union representatives, and finally, the procurement process should be characterised by talent and skill, with clear lines of responsibility, proper reward and career structures and a culture of consequences for those tasked with project management. Within that, military expertise has to be maximised without a single-service interest dominating decision making. The Opposition welcome a rigorous examination of all the options for achieving that and wish to see a genuine comparison made between the two options of GoCo and DE&S-plus.

James Arbuthnot: I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but can I take it that he has no objection, in principle, to a GoCo, but that he wishes to see how it works out in practice?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my point entirely. We wish to see reform. It is difficult to defend the status quo, which, despite the many efforts of the professionals involved, has ill suited successive Governments and has not delivered value for money. In addition to testing the logic of GoCo and DE&S-plus against the three principles I mentioned, we will consider the points the Defence Committee raised.
	Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), it is important that the comparison be genuine and be seen to be genuine. I say gently to the Secretary of State, however, that so far he has failed to guarantee that the Government will publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies. I hope they will take the opportunity, today or in Committee, to commit to doing so. It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that affordability is a determining factor in this process, but that can be achieved only if we have public transparency in the findings prior to a final decision being made and Members being asked to vote in favour.
	I hope, too, that we will receive reassurances about the role of Parliament and the National Audit Office in scrutinising the internal decision-making process of a GoCo. It is understood that the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable—to be fair, he said the same again today—but the decisions taken by the contractor in the handling of multi-billion pound projects should not be free from public oversight. It will also interest the House to know how reform will impact on one of the centrepieces of the 2011 Levene review, which was for service chiefs to
	“take responsibility (and ultimately own the budget) for detailed capability planning”.
	Any enhanced power for a contractor could contradict the increased control over budgetary management and planning given to the service chiefs.

Philip Hammond: I am happy to clarify that point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of devolving budget responsibility to the front-line commands, including responsibility for equipment procurement and support, starting with the smaller equipment procurement projects, but eventually including all but the very largest and most strategic. They will be the customers for the GoCo, just as in the current model they are the customers for DE&S. One of the disciplines that the proposed change will introduce is a harder boundary between the customer and the provider. At the moment, we suffer from a permeable boundary that allows decision making sometimes to be a bit woollier than it should be.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for that genuinely helpful intervention. In Committee, we will have to interrogate the expertise of the civil servants operating at that interface. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but they are up against remarkably talented negotiators with an entirely legitimate commercial interest, so we have to get that interface right. The simplicity the Secretary of State spoke about is important.

Philip Hammond: I apologise for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again, but that is exactly the point: the civil servants and the military people in the front-line commands—who are the customers—will interface with DE&S-plus or GoCo, which is their service provider. It is the service provider that will have to deal with the hard-nosed negotiators of the multi-billion pound international defence companies, and which will need to hire and fire in the marketplace at market rates in order to face them across the table on a level playing field—if I may mix my metaphors.

Jim Murphy: We are looking for a level playing field and a level negotiating table—if a metaphor it is—because this issue is so significant. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about hopefully simplifying and strengthening the process. However, procurement might have become a little more complicated as a consequence of a speech given today by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place—which would normally mean the second Chamber, but which on this occasion appears to mean the Royal United Services Institute. We are pretty clear: Labour have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent. Actually, I should correct myself: we have not always said that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think it has always been the case for you, Mr Murphy.

Jim Murphy: You know me well, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since we were serious, we have always said—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Sorry: since we are being serious about our nation’s defence and have a passing affection for the public’s opinion, we have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change that view, but the review published today does not appear to offer such evidence. We will continue to scrutinise today’s report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament. Labour will also continue to look at ways in which a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent can
	be delivered most efficiently, based on protecting our capability, delivering value for money and advancing disarmament objectives.

John Woodcock: If you will permit me for a moment to continue straying off the topic slightly, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I put on the record the fact that the shadow Defence team deserves a great deal of credit for keeping both sides of the House on the right path, both for the thousands of jobs in my constituency and for our future defence for generations ahead?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should try to hold back his speech for tomorrow? I would not want him to use it all up today, and I think he got the point across.

Jim Murphy: I take your strictures about our not using the speeches we intend to give tomorrow, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am not making a speech tomorrow—my hon. Friends will be speaking then—so I thought I would say it today.
	The point I am making is about procurement, GoCo and DE&S-plus, and the complexity of the deterrent programme in that process. However, what we have learnt today is that the Lib Dem part of the Government has taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that the Lib Dems’ past policy was unachievable. Today they appear to have managed to advocate both a Trident-based system and part-time unilateralism simultaneously. That is a real achievement. The British people will marvel at the incompetence of suggesting that we should pay tens of billions of pounds to send boats to sea, while the media are now being briefed that on occasion they will not even carry missiles. That is like someone having a new, expensive burglar alarm at their home with no batteries and a sign above the door saying, “Come on in—no one’s at home”.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman must understand and be accurate in his descriptions. This was not a Liberal Democrat review; it was a review by the Government, insisted on by the Liberal Democrats, which says:
	“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
	Credibility—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are in danger of running tomorrow’s debate today. I do not want to do that; I want to get back to the Bill. [Interruption.] No, you are taking the bait, Mr Horwood. It is no use looking to Mr Murphy; we know he is not here tomorrow, but you will be.

Jim Murphy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), it was impossible for him not to take the bait. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sensibly says, “He’s the only Lib Dem here.” There is no audience, as it were, from his party for him to perform for, although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make the Lib Dems’ policy clear tomorrow in the Chamber—I hope. However, there is an
	issue—I will finish on this matter after this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—about how taxpayers’ money has been used to inform a Lib Dem process. I accept that the Government will say that the review is a Government document, but it was intended to inform the Lib Dem manifesto.
	One of the primary arguments for a GoCo is its supposed ability to attract and retain higher skills and prevent a loss of talent from DE&S. The Opposition are clear about the need to increase the skill levels in our armed forces, but we recognise that this requirement limits itself to those in uniform. Those at the front line of defence procurement within government should be the equal in experience of those within industry—a point to which the Secretary of State has alluded. We will carefully scrutinise the procedures in place to ensure that the assessment phase is fair and transparent, and that sufficient controls are in place to ensure that those involved in the possible preparation of a GoCo cannot immediately go and work in that GoCo, a point to which we will return.
	While we are on this theme, it seems unacceptable that the Government have not yet fully published their findings on The Sunday Times revelations on cash for access within the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State, of course, wrote to me on the matter, explaining the outcomes, but this was a private letter and I was not at liberty to disclose its contents and have chosen not to do so. I think it important, however, for the Secretary of State to provide the full details to the House.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but I was not aware that I had not explained the situation publicly. If he would care to ask me a written parliamentary question, I will publish in the public domain the full information I have provided to him.

Jim Murphy: That is a kind offer from the Secretary of State, although he could have done so off his own back, and the problem is that we are running out of time for named day questions and replies. The alternative, with his permission, would be for me simply to tweet his letter. That would be quicker and I would be happy to do so if he so wishes. [Interruption.] With the Secretary of State’s permission, I will now tweet the letter I received some months ago detailing the Government’s response to The Sunday Times revelations.
	These issues, alongside the impact of any reform of our strategic and working relationships with major international partners, particularly the US, and providing clarity on the ownership of risk, will be priorities for the Opposition. The restructuring of DE&S, however, should also be seen as part of a wider structural reform of defence procurement.
	There is much else that I could have said, but time is against us today and my colleagues will raise in Committee additional points about sovereign capabilities, long-term planning and predictability for British industry, so I shall now turn briefly to reform of the reserves.
	The Opposition want to ensure that reservist recruitment is successful so that the reserves can work alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reservists make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways. About 2,000 of them, some of whom I saw for myself
	when I went to see the Greco-Roman wrestling, helped to protect the London Olympics. Many serve overseas in far-away terrain in the name of national security. We should pay tribute to each one of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives serving our nation.
	While we champion the reserve force, we recognise the need to modernise. The name change to “Army Reserve” will reflect a modern composition and hopefully help to attract a new generation of recruits. The task ahead is, however, enormous and we should not pretend otherwise. The plan to double the size of the reserve forces to 30,000 by 2018 is now central to the Government’s ability to deliver their planning assumptions—originally, of course, designed for an Army of 95,000, but after further cuts now reliant on a regular force of just 82,000.
	The scale of this task is underlined if we consider that the reserve forces of the US, Canada and Australia make up between 40% and 50% of their armies, as opposed to 20% here in the UK. Many analysts worry that, rather than reform of the Army being synchronised with that of the reserves, both are disjointed and the reserve uplift will not complement the regular Army but supplement lost capacity. Cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves, rather than the one being contingent on the other.
	This development comes as Army reserve recruitment has hit real trouble. The figures are publicly available—that recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year. Great care has to be taken to ensure that the loss of 26 Territorial Army centres does not make civilian communities in certain areas more disconnected from the military and disinclined to volunteer for the reserves.

Tobias Ellwood: I echo the tone adopted by the shadow Secretary of State, but I am concerned by his direction of travel. Will he not take some responsibility for what happened to the TA during the previous Government’s tenure? The size of the TA fell by 40% and recruitment was down by tens of thousands. As a member of the TA, I remember an announcement from this place that training was to be cut and that no funding would be provided. He must acknowledge that the previous Government have some responsibility for where things are today.

Jim Murphy: That would be a very fair point if it was based on a fact. I suspect that our conversation today will be less productive if we repeat some of the debates of recent times, but the fact is that we increased the size of the Regular Army, whereas this uplift in the reserve forces is happening at a time of reductions in the Regular Army—that is the significant difference.

Tobias Ellwood: I did not mention the Regular Army, but the TA. When Labour came to power in 1997, TA numbers were 62,000. When Labour left power in 2010, they were 37,000. It does not take a maths degree to realise that that is a massive reduction in TA capability.

Jim Murphy: My point is that in the same context, Regular Army numbers increased. I do not want us to bat each other about the head on this; I am assessing how we can make a success of the boost in reservist numbers. The comparison the hon. Gentleman invites
	me to draw, however, is with the Labour Government, and we boosted the size of the Regular Army. His party said that it was not big enough; it wanted an even bigger Army and was elected on a manifesto of going in that direction. The comparison is clear: we boosted the number of regulars. Of course, there is always pressure when it comes to reservists, who were under-recruited for about nine decades, so this is not a short-term problem for us or the current Government to grapple with.

Philip Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Does he accept that the six-month cancellation of TA training announced by the previous Government in October 2009 was not the way to stimulate TA recruitment and confidence? Also, as he is talking about Regular Army numbers, does he now accept a Regular Army of 82,000 as the basis for Future Force 2020, or does he still hanker after a reversal of that reduction?

Jim Murphy: As the Secretary of State knows, the previous decision on training was based on the recommendation of the Regular Army and the best available military advice. It was the type of situation that he faces whenever it comes to considering the best available military advice. We will make the detailed shape of the formation of our forces clear in our strategic defence review and in advance of the election.
	The Opposition support moves to improve the training for reservists and ease their deeper integration with regular forces. We also support moves to use niche civilian skills, for example on cyber, in a military setting as well as to expand occupational health services. There are, however, areas where we believe the Government could go further. It is essential that the changes, particularly the extended periods of training and deployment, be compatible with employment patterns and that the reforms be designed in collaboration with employers.
	It is worth noting the huge impact the changes could have on employers, particularly small employers. More than 600,000 businesses in the UK employ between two and four people. I suspect that we Members all employ a similar number of people in our parliamentary offices. We should ask how we would cope with losing a staff member for up to a year. Although I am sure that each and every one of us would be enormously supportive of a staff member’s military ambition, we might struggle to fill that space. Once we reflect on how we would feel about that, it gives us a better understanding of what many within that core group of 600,000 businesses will be confronted with.
	Our view is that the reservists in those businesses will be a remarkable bonus and asset for them, but we must do more together to make that argument. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that for one in three businesses, nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, whereas almost 40% of those who had employed or would consider employing a reservist said that they believed that the Government’s proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their business. I do not agree with that; nevertheless, it is a sentiment felt by all too many businesses.
	I welcome the announcement about access to unfair dismissal tribunals, but, as we have said before—and the Secretary of State referred to this—we believe that Ministers could go further. Current legislation clearly
	states that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation in which he was employed before his service, on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on grounds of military affiliation.
	We hope that, rather than embarking on a new consultation, the Government will work with employers on new legislation to provide further protection against discrimination in the hiring of reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation for reservists to make a transparent declaration at the interview stage. We believe that that should be part of a wider collaborative approach, and that a permanent employer engagement committee should be established to enable Governments to take the lead in advocating the employment of reservists.
	There has been some debate about whether £1.8 billion is the right amount to invest, but we should also consider whether it will provide value for money. We hope that Ministers will be able to shed light on that in Committee. We shall want to know what proportion of the money is intended to fund financial incentives for employers and the “reservist award”, which tops up reservists’ salaries to match their civilian salaries. We shall also want to know whether the £1.8 billion covers reservists’ training, medical costs and pension payments, or whether those will come from another part of the MOD’s core budget. We are keen to establish what elements of the Reserves 2020 plan have clear funding streams, and where there may be unknown liabilities in a budget that involves competing interests.
	The Bill has the potential to help the United Kingdom develop world-class procurement procedures that will be the envy of every nation. It gives us an opportunity to make a success of the enormous challenge of doubling the reserve force. The Opposition will support and scrutinise its proposals in Committee, and will give it a fair passage today.

James Arbuthnot: I echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the quality of our armed forces and the amount that we demand of them. We are putting them through a lot at the moment.
	Once upon a time, before most Members were born, I was a Defence Procurement Minister, and I was delighted by the publication of the Bernard Gray report under the last Government. Sadly, the then Prime Minister tried to suppress it, although he should have recognised that it covered not just the period of a Labour Government, but the period during which I was in charge of defence procurement. The report revealed a great many failings in the procurement process. It showed, for instance, that the programme was overheated, that a weak interface between the MOD and DE&S was resulting in poor discipline and very little change control, and that there were insufficient skills in the DE&S. Subsequently, I was both delighted and highly amused when Bernard Gray was put in charge of sorting out the mess that he had identified.
	The Bill was designed to achieve that. Like Gaul, it is divided into three parts—although, according to its drafting, there are four—dealing with defence procurement, single source contracts and reserves. Each of those issues,
	but particularly procurement, raises a great many questions. I shall ask some of them now, because in the case of a change as fundamental as this, the devil is in the detail. The change is fundamental and it is being made against a background of fundamental change at the MOD as a result of the Levene reforms, severe reductions in funding and huge redundancies, not to mention the fighting in Afghanistan and the withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany. As I have said, we are asking a lot of the Ministry of Defence, and it will need help to achieve the major changes set out in this Bill. It will need help from Parliament and from industry, and from academia and the country, and it should be willing to ask for and accept help, and everyone else should be willing to give it.
	I shall start with the defence procurement process set out in the Bill. In December 2011 the Chief of Defence Matériel set out four options: first, the status quo; secondly, a trading fund; thirdly, an executive non-departmental public body with a private sector partner; and fourthly, the GoCo. We are now down to two options: a value-for-money comparison between the GoCo and what we hear is called DE&S-plus. Most unusually, there is no option to stay as we are. It is perhaps surprising that the MOD non-executive directors have not insisted on there being a stay-as-you-are option.
	The GoCo option is reasonably clear, and I will come on to it in a moment, but DE&S-plus is not at all clear. The White Paper devotes a massive four lines to it and does not define it. In fact, so far as I understand it, DE&S-plus is designed to be unclear in order to be the basis for a negotiation between the MOD and the Treasury as to the freedoms the Treasury can offer. In other words, if DE&S-plus can pay more for its personnel and so attract much needed skills—more than current civil service terms and conditions allow for—the GoCo will become less attractive. But how, in practice, can the Treasury loosen the rules for the MOD without loosening those same rules for other Departments with similar problems? If the answer is that in practice it cannot, does that mean that in practice this decision has already been made—so it is GoCo or nothing, and there is no public sector comparator? Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made up his mind? How will the private sector companies bidding for a GoCo be confident that their bids are being fairly compared with DE&S-plus, whatever that may be?
	ADS, the organisation of defence companies, suggests that the proper metrics might be better value for money for the taxpayer; shorter and cheaper bidding processes; improved skills and expertise; and greater stability in the funding of the defence budget. That is a potential set of metrics, but what does my right hon. Friend say are the proper comparators, and how will he avoid this being a wholly subjective guess about future behaviour?
	This brings me to the GoCo itself. I am not instinctively opposed to this idea—in fact, I am rather attracted by it—but the Defence Committee has asked lots of questions, some of which remain unanswered. No other country has gone down this route, so this is courageous, Minister. That does not mean it is wrong, but there are some questions. First, if a foreign company is the lead partner within a GoCo, how will the MOD deal with any conflicts of loyalty that arise? The Atomic Weapons
	Establishment does not create such conflicts and is not as widespread in its coverage. Secondly, there are concerns about the issue of intellectual property, as some of my colleagues have said. That is covered in the single sourcing part of the Bill, but it is not covered in the defence procurement part.

Madeleine Moon: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is about to mention how the GoCo will affect current alliances and agreements for joint contracting between the UK and our partners. I was in the USA last week for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I spoke to many alliance partners in NATO and to Congress members in Washington. The best that they could say was that Britain was very brave, that they would like to see whether we succeeded and that they would leave us to get on with it. Concern was also expressed, however, about whether they would be willing to share confidential contracting and technological information. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a concern?

James Arbuthnot: As I have said before, the hon. Lady performs a valuable service on the Defence Select Committee. She has put her finger on an extremely important point, which was also raised by the Select Committee in our report on defence acquisition. She is right; this matter has to be covered. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question about how the United States and France were reacting to the proposal, and he was able to say that he had received a supportive letter from the United States that very morning. I also know that there is a working party in operation with the United States to try to ensure that any problems are ironed out. It is true that other countries think we are being very brave. If we are indeed being so courageous, and if this works, we may well forge the way for other countries to follow us. It may well be that whichever company succeeds with the GoCo in this country could find vast new opportunities opening up for it. For example, it could take over the defence procurement of the United States, which would make somebody extremely rich.
	The next question, which has been raised by ADS and by the Federation of Small Businesses, relates to how the GoCo proposition would affect small and medium-sized enterprises. The FSB has said that it is broadly supportive of the Government’s proposal, as contained in the Bill, but that it is vital that the needs of SMEs be considered when the reforms are implemented. I echo that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do so as well.
	The time line involved is ambitious. I understand that there is a suggestion that we might reach a final conclusion in April 2015. That must remind us all of another fixture in our diaries for May 2015—the general election. Surely the risk of this project running up against the next election is huge.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. The expectation is that the competitive process will be completed by the spring of next year, with the contract award in the late summer and with the GoCo standing up, if that is the solution we choose, towards the end of next year or at the very beginning of 2015—around December or January.

James Arbuthnot: Oh, good. One problem is that the date for the invitations to negotiate has already slipped. That was meant to take place this month, but it is now taking place in August. Let us hope there is no further slippage. We have not heard that any is expected; let us just hope.

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will provide some clarity about the invitations to negotiate. They must not be allowed to slip beyond August, as any further slippage would put at risk the rather challenging timetable that the Secretary of State has outlined.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend, as a former Minister responsible for defence procurement, has a great deal of expertise. Despite the enormous qualities of his successor, I was very sad to see him leave his job. He has got this point absolutely right.
	I am going to divide the final question on this defence procurement issue into three. We understand that the process of moving towards a GoCo, if a GoCo is accepted, will be taken in two stages, with perhaps one domain paving the way to be followed by the rest of defence procurement. My questions are: first, what will be included in the first domain? Secondly, how long will it take for the Government to work out whether it has succeeded, so that the remainder of defence procurement joins the first domain? Thirdly, how will anybody work out, within a period of less than 10 years—many of these defence contracts run for so long—whether this approach has succeeded? My suspicion is that the success of this entire process will be able to be judged only in about 2020. I wish it well and, as I said at the beginning, I am attracted to the idea.
	On single source contracts, the House will be relieved to hear that I have not got very much more to say. I am not sure why this matter requires legislation, because for many decades we have been spending 40% of the defence budget without legislation. It may be that there is a tearing and pressing need for legislation or that the setting up of the regulator is what requires legislation, but no doubt that can be explained. It is startling that the MOD will be able to challenge a contract price already agreed between the parties up to two years after the completion of that contract. I would have thought that would make it a bit difficult for industry to decide how to invest, but, again, no doubt the Minister will deal with that in his wind-up. Will these new rules apply to overseas contractors? Apparently they will not. Does that not create an incentive for UK defence contractors to move abroad? That would be a shame.
	Part 3 of the Bill deals with the reserves—once again, I declare an interest because my daughter is one of them. I keep asking this, but I am told that repetition is no shame in a politician: what plan does the Prime Minister have to form an alliance with the Leader of the Opposition and to go out and make it absolutely plain that this reserve forces project must succeed, in the national interest. It must succeed because there is no plan B. Much of the plan has already been welcomed by industry. I think there is a greater job to be done by industry in saying that this must succeed in the national interest, and by the FSB, which, as I say, supports it. Some measures in the Bill—for example, the extra notice for the deployment of reservists—will certainly make
	things easier for employers. The £500 extra payment has been welcomed by the British Medical Association, as well as by the FSB and others. Perhaps there is more to be done in order to sell this, but the success of the entire process is essential. I welcome this Bill and this part of it as being in the national interest, and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to get out there and say so himself.

Dai Havard: Obviously, I have spent some time on the Defence Committee, along with the Chairman and others. We have spent a number of years studying some of these things, from Governments who have come and gone. Clearly the Bill is central to our discussion about how we make our MOD efficient, so I do not approach it from the point of view of opposing change and reform. This is a debate about how we get the correct reform. On the question of GoCo or no-GoCo—or “NoCo” or whatever it is or is likely to be—or “NDPB-plus”, I am not going to go into great detail, because the previous speech raised many of the concern. As for the freedoms required in the individual terms and conditions given to a chief executive of an organisation, who can pick and choose people and so on, I am a little worried that we should build structures around individuals, as they also come and go. That cannot be the only reason for reform, however; there must be broader reasons for making such a change.
	Let me deal with the organisation in the context of the rest of the Ministry of Defence, because the remainder of the Levene reforms must be considered. The heads of individual services and joint services will be procurers. They will not sit on the central board, but they will buy things from various parts of the organisation, as there will be single contracts in addition to DE&S requirements. We can make DE&S as efficient as we like, but we must consider the broader context of whether changing DE&S will make the whole process more efficient, so a lot more work needs to be done on that.
	My personal prejudice—I was glad that the Secretary of State spoke about where risk will be retained—is that if we are not careful, a further risk is created by moving things too far away from the political organisation. It will never abdicate responsibility, so if anything goes wrong, it might lack the strategic capacity to direct in such a way as to change the process. Care needs to be taken about the extent to which things are pushed out into a private contracting organisation.
	Let me turn to the organisation of the reserves. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, because I have written to him about this and received something of a reply. I was concerned by the weekend’s events because my constituents were involved, in the sense that my local mountain rescue and search team—Central Beacons mountain rescue team—effectively became the initial primary support for the rescue activity. I do not want to get this wrong, because there will be police and coroner inquiries, but if the Secretary of State were in the Chamber, I would ask him at least to thank the team publicly and to acknowledge its activities on that day.
	The team was subsequently supported by Rescue 169 from Chivenor and various other highly professional people to help with the co-ordination of the activity,
	and they did their best in the circumstances. I thank the rescue team publicly, and my local community expresses its sympathy to those affected during the exercise and the families and friends of those who died. There are lessons to be learned from the weekend, so when that happens, I hope that the exercise will include those people involved. I saw volunteers rescuing volunteers. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but if the support process is going to work, those volunteers should participate properly in that lessons-learned exercise, because they have much to contribute.
	I am not a shrinking violet who wishes to downgrade the rigorous nature of training, but an exercise such as the Fan dance must be managed well, and monitored and supported correctly, or it should not be done. The sun had not been out in Wales for about nine months, but local people were expected to run around in the heat at the weekend. Perhaps certain exercises should be graded and there is something to be said for considering how a number are conducted, but the weekend’s activity was a selection exercise, not a training exercise. While many lessons could be learned from what happened, we must be careful, because there is a constituency that will want to downgrade the exercise. There is no need to do so, however, because with proper management, monitoring and support, such a downgrade can be avoided, and the legitimacy of the process will be unaffected.
	Wales provides something like 7% to 8% of armed forces personnel, yet our population represents 3% of the UK. Hon. Members may draw their own conclusions about why that is the case, but it is due to many things, such as commitment and history. However, people will look at the proposals and say, “What is this new reserve force we’re being offered? How will we relate to the regular forces? Do I want to play this game and get involved or not?” Others will ask, “Do I want my son, daughter or godson to go into this?” It is not just about money. There are important changes, giving people extra rights, but it will not be possible to make the numbers unless the legitimacy of joining is recognised within the community where recruitment is to take place.

Madeleine Moon: I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. The exercise has been carried out in the beacons over many years, yet two people died and a third person is seriously ill. That is sending shock waves of concern throughout the families and friends of those seeking to join the reserves. Is it not crucial that, if mistakes are found to have occurred, the Ministry of Defence is clear about what those mistakes were and how they will be rectified, so that people may volunteer without anxiety, and families can feel confident that the reserves is a safe and credible option for their family members?

Dai Havard: I agree entirely. There is also the question of what people are required to do. There is some description in the White Paper about what reserves will and will not be required to do and how those are linked, but there is a broader question about the type of organisation and the support provided.
	I shall come on to the duty of care, which is related to that. The call-out of reservists will be the same as that of regulars. That suggests that they are the same, but
	they are not necessarily going to do the same things. There may be legal issues involved that we need to explore. I understand why the present narrative is the way it is. It is trying to make things clearer, but at some point we may not be achieving that, and we may need to look to the White Paper to help us do so. The title includes the words “valuable and valued”. The reserves are both; that is absolutely correct, but they will be called out on the same legal basis as regulars. The training is to be the same, but it is not really the same. A lot more work needs to be done.
	The Defence Committee is undertaking some work on one aspect. As in the case of the accident at the weekend, about which I will not go into detail, there is a duty of care to people when they are put in certain circumstances. We all know that and we see the latest decisions by the Supreme Court and so on. There is the potential for lawfare, when people might seek to use domestic legislation as a weapons system, all the way through to the development of universal jurisdiction. That is the background to the way that people might operate, and in the Defence Committee we are going to look at these things. We have an inquiry offer out now and people should put evidence to us to try to clarify how the system will work.
	Regulars may not be the same as reservists in certain circumstances. The law will not necessarily provide the architectural background to some of the decisions that people think they have made. We are concerned about that and we need to inquire into the position and make sure that the law does that. Money is supremely important, as we all know. For some years we have been trying to drive more efficiency into the Ministry of Defence, yes, but it is not just about the money. The MOD should not degrade the quality of the response that it will get, by talking only in those terms.

Julian Brazier: I follow the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and others in paying tribute to those brave young men who have just lost their lives in the hills of the Brecon Beacons. My thoughts and prayers are with their families, as I am sure are those of the whole House. I remember some uncomfortable times there many years ago.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard). He and I work together closely on the Select Committee. I associate myself with his tribute to the mountain rescue service in his constituency. We must not prejudge the inquiry, but I hope its role in averting a much worse problem will be fully acknowledged.
	Let me be very clear that I strongly support the Bill and I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), will be taking it through Committee—if I am very lucky, perhaps I will be allowed to serve on it. I support almost all the Bill’s provisions. I just want to say a few words on procurement before focusing mostly on part 3.
	I am happy that we are evaluating the possibility of a GoCo. There are a number of very successful GoCos in our current set-up, including Aldermaston and the special arrangements that Babcock has with the Royal Navy. However, to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for
	Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, there is one feature of the GoCo that I am very concerned about: the possibility that there might be a substantial foreign element in its running. My reason for saying that is not xenophobic at all. There are two main reasons why there should be a serious concern about foreign companies or foreign employees being involved in the management company: one relates to intellectual property rights—state secrets—and the other relates to reasons of commercial confidentiality.
	Many years ago, just before I was elected to Parliament, I did a consulting project in Aldermaston for the management of a small Swedish firm that I was working for at the time. I cannot see how the commercially in confidence question could possibly arise in Aldermaston with regard to the American companies involved in the management. It simply is not an issue. The point about IPR is that we are already collaborating with the Americans and, arguably, they are pretty uniformly ahead of us; so the IPR reason does not arise, because there is no parallel.
	The plain fact is that if we were to employ foreigners in a management company, whether or not they work for foreign companies, there is a danger that they might then be cherry-picked. Even if we put the clear criminal sanctions set out in part 2 of the Bill into part 1—slightly oddly, they are in part 2 but not in part 1—there would be no way of enforcing them if, for example, an American employee of an American company was then head-hunted by one of the big American defence contractors so that it could pick his brains on commercially confidential material.

Peter Luff: I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. The risk he identifies exists already. The risk of people being head-hunted from Defence Equipment and Support because they cannot be paid the right sum of money means that intellectual property can already transfer out of the organisation too readily. I think that those risks, whatever the nationality of the companies that have an interest in the contract, will be reduced significantly by the change to GoCo status.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend’s point is well taken, and I support the concept of the GoCo, but the plain fact is that, however strong the protections we try to put in place, there is no way of enforcing them in relation to foreign employees. It is that straightforward.

Peter Luff: rose—

Julian Brazier: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will move on to the main burden of what I want to say today, which relates to reserve forces. I strongly support the measures set out in part 3. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is clearly agitated, so I will take his intervention before moving on.

Peter Luff: I think that I can offer further reassurance. All employees in sensitive areas of DE&S will be required to be “UK eyes only” personnel, so no foreigners would be working on the sensitive stuff that worries him.

Julian Brazier: If the sensitive areas were for UK eyes only, that is a protection normally for intellectual property rights. The problem for the defence industry is what is
	commercially in confidence—increasingly being called “soft IPR”—which is in no way covered by the provision my hon. Friend mentions, as he knows. The problem is that knowing how a particular contractor has structured a particular contract, which the management company must know—otherwise, there is no point in having it—means that that kind of information must be known to it, and it is extremely valuable material. He was quite right to say in his previous intervention that the danger already exists. However, the only way to produce an enforceable mechanism that deals with it cannot cover foreign employees who go back to America, or indeed anywhere else, although I think that we would be unlikely to take employees from another country.
	My main point concerns reserve forces. I strongly support part 3 of the Bill and the Government’s measures on reserves, and I was delighted to hear the shadow Defence Secretary give a broad welcome from the Opposition Benches to those measures. I will not go into the provisions in the Bill except to say that one or two—special support for SMEs, for example—are especially welcome, as is greater protection for employees who are reservists. Instead, I suggest that the Bill could provide a vehicle for reforms in the governance of reserves. Such reforms were highlighted in the report by the independent commission to review the United Kingdom’s reserve forces, on which I was privileged to serve, as we are a long way out of line with arrangements in other English-speaking countries.
	Our report looked at three areas of governance, one of which was for transition. The other two areas were senior appointments, and the role of the reserve forces and cadets associations and, when considering those two matters, it is important to ask what is happening abroad. I have focused on English-speaking countries because there is little point in looking at countries that have recently given up conscription. The most obvious example of a country that gave up conscription a long time ago—France—has gone down a route that Britain will never follow in having an armed gendarmerie trained effectively as an army reserve, including a big reserve component of its own. Therefore, the US, Canada and Australia seemed to the commission, and seem to me today, to be the best comparators.
	In truth, those countries—I say this with no pride at all as somebody who has extensively visited their armed forces—have consistently had, year after year, much lower personnel turnover than our reserve forces, and they often get better turnouts for periodic training. The National Guard units that I visited in Afghanistan had a staggering 98% turnout for that operation, and the officer recruiting level of all those other countries is much higher than in the UK. Reserve forces in those countries have a larger place in society than our Army Reserve, and I fully endorse and totally support everything the Government are doing to expand that role in society. Above all, reserves in other countries have much more experience than us of deploying formed capability rather than simply being used as a part-time personnel service, as has been forced on the reserves over the past few years.

Bob Stewart: I totally understand and accept the majority of what my hon. Friend is saying, but to compare us with the National Guard is somewhat misleading. National Guard units are often mobilised and deployed
	for long periods of time, whereas our system will bring someone in for six months’ operations, presumably with three months of training before and three months afterwards. That is not as long as National Guard units serve, which obviously makes them almost regular, at least in spirit.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has been misinformed about that. An impressive airborne cavalry unit that I visited in Kabul was one of a small number of units that had had the misfortune a few years ago of being part of the only experiment by the Americans in recent memory of trying to call people out for more than 12 months. The US has the same limit as us in the UK and has agreed never to repeat that experiment because of the painful experience. Such units operate on the same 12-month cycle as we do.
	I do not say this to run down our reserve forces in any way, but when those forces were used as formed bodies, they served extremely well despite the handicaps they faced. One thinks of a company of reservists from the London Regiment, who in their time in Afghanistan were reputed to have killed 45 members of the Taliban. They got an incredible endorsement, which I quoted in the House, from their Brigade Commander, Brigadier—now General—Lorimer. I also think of my own former unit, which deployed a squadron that got three military crosses. However, I want to make the point that, in terms of yardsticks, we are behind the curve. I welcome all the Government’s efforts to move us up the curve, but we have to recognise that governance is an important part of this.

Thomas Docherty: I am slightly confused by the excellent answer that the hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). When he says that reserves in the US deploy on a 12-month basis, does he mean that their total call-out is 12 months and they are not doing 12 months in theatre?

Julian Brazier: They have almost exactly the same total span as us—basically, 12 months. Unlike us, they typically do three months’ work-up and nine months’ deployment—this is for formed bodies up to brigade level—whereas we do six months and six months, but it is still a 12-month limit. The Australians, who have sent a number of formed bodies to Afghanistan, do three months and three months.
	I am explaining these points because it is worth looking at the difference in governance arrangements, some of which we set out in our commission report. In all three of these countries, the vast majority of reserve units are commanded by reservists, and the vast majority of those units are in brigades, also commanded by reservists. The National Guard has a whole mass of legislation protecting its special status. Australia and Canada do not have the same legal arrangements, but both countries have a set of widely accepted customs and practices that work in lieu.
	That brings me to the main point that I want to put to the House. I suggest that there are four things—two pairs of things—we can do to redress the balance a little, all of which build on the spirit of what the Government
	are doing. The first two are about people. Sir Peter Wall anticipated our commission report with a very good move that has been pivotal in delivering progress when he announced overnight that he was creating a new post that has existed since time immemorial in Australia and Canada and in the National Guard in every state in America—a de facto commander of the TA in the shape of the Deputy Commander Land Forces. The Duke of Westminster was the first incumbent and General Ranald Munro is now doing the job. They are both fine reserve officers.
	Sir Peter Wall said that that was a tied post, but there is nothing laid down anywhere to say that some future, less enlightened Chief of the General Staff, with a selection committee entirely composed of senior regular officers, and one token civil servant, should not at some future stage retire an existing two-star general and say “Here we have a reservist who can do the job.” That is the current arrangement with the reserves in the RAF. I propose that a list should be laid down of certain jobs that are tied to people, many of whom may be ex-regulars, who have for a number of years earned their living in the civilian world and served as reservists at the same time. The selection committee should include an outside element, perhaps the chairman of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations or the outgoing incumbent.
	My second recommendation on people is that we must address the issue of reserve primacy for unit-level command. I am not asking that we have reservist brigade commanders, like all these other countries, although we do already have reservist deputy brigade commanders. In 2011, a week before we published our report, the military secretary’s department broke completely new ground by announcing, unbelievably, that whereas other countries have 80% to 90% reservist commanders, and historically we have had 40% to 50%, 24 out of 30 of the reserve commands were to go to regular officers. I have to say that I was so angry about this that my fellow members of the commission had more or less to tie me down.
	The subsequent year—2012—the department did something that was arguably even worse. Although it put the word out that it wanted more reservists, it applied a de facto reverse quality filter and made such an unreasonable demand with regard to man training days for TA commanding officers that most of the people with the best jobs said, “I’m not putting in for that.” The result was a great deal of unhappiness with some of the command awards. The generation who will take on those units—the two years between recruits mean that this relates to almost every Territorial Army unit—are not necessarily the kind of people who would have been selected if the process had been similar to that which is used abroad.
	The good news is that the new military secretary is working very hard on this and trying to sort it out. A strenuous effort is being made to encourage and develop good-quality people to be the next generation of TA commanding officers. None of this, however, is laid down anywhere. I think that TA primacy—which, incidentally, exists in the Royal Naval Reserve—should be formally laid down.
	That brings me to my last two points, which are on the RFCAs. I was delighted that the Government adopted in their Green Paper our report’s recommendation for an annual report from the RFCA Council on the state
	of the reserve forces. It was right that the Secretary of State saw that first and I was glad when he published the Green Paper for Parliament. Unfortunately, it was then suddenly announced in the White Paper that, rather than having a wider remit, the report should focus on progress with integration and that it should stop when integration is completed in 2018. That was not our recommendation. It is after the political spotlight has moved on that the role of this independent report will be most important.
	It is worth remembering that when Haldane set up the reserves, who served so bravely six years later in the first world war, he gave to the County Associations—the forerunners of the RFCAs—a large part of the budget as well as the responsibility for managing recruitment, basic training and property. Today the only responsibility left to the RFCAs is the control of property, which they do vastly more effectively than the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, with less than a third of the percentage overhead. They also make use of all the free expertise available from the people on the individual regional councils, including estate agents, lawyers and entrepreneurs.
	For the past 10 or 15 years, the RFCAs have been handicapped in that work because, despite the fact that they own most of the estate, they are no longer allowed a free hand to manage it properly. They are constantly subject to trying to drive deals. For example, in Yorkshire an excellent deal with a local supermarket that would enable essential renovation work to take place has been on hold for several years. Now that the basing plans are sorted out, I think we should put in legislation the role of the RFCA as owners of most of the property.
	In summary, the word “integration” is at the heart of this. The Government are committed—in a welcome plan that I strongly support—to the integration of regular and reserve components. We have tried assimilation and it failed. The findings of our commission’s report on an assimilated structure with no separate chain of command for Army Reserve—in fact, the structure did not even include a reserve branch at Land Command; it just had a few people scattered around—were dismal. Integration is about recognising that each service has a separate ethos. Someone who serves as a reservist and does something else for their main living has a different ethos. The White Paper says a great deal about moving from being service personnel to providing capability—I strongly support that—but in order to make it work we have to hardwire certain structures into the system, and I believe that this welcome Bill offers us that opportunity.

Iain Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is respected in all parts of the House for his vast knowledge of defence matters. I associate myself with the thoughtful and heartfelt tribute that he paid to the two men who tragically died in the past couple of days in the Brecon Beacons.
	I will concentrate on part 1 and, to some extent, part 2 of the Bill. The provisions in part 1 are fraught with risk. I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee that the devil is in the detail and that no other country in the world has attempted to outsource the means by which it equips its armed forces. The notion that a GoCo—the Government’s preferred option—will act as
	the agent of the Ministry of Defence and negotiate and sign new contracts on behalf of the Secretary of State is an inherently risky one that needs to be explored during the passage of the Bill.
	A defence procurement strategy should have three objectives. First and foremost, it should provide the equipment that is necessary to ensure that this country has the protection and security that it needs. Secondly, it should provide value for money for the taxpayer in the pursuit of the first objective. I also believe that it should have the third objective of supporting and enhancing our manufacturing and innovation capability. I am concerned that the Bill, particularly part 1, does not provide for all three objectives.
	I heartily agree with the Defence Committee report on defence acquisition that was published earlier this year, which stated:
	“We believe that the absence of a defence industrial strategy which supports appropriate national sovereignty puts the UK at a disadvantage against competitor countries.”
	In evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company stated that the Government’s
	“feeble support to British Industry is in striking contrast to the model in continental Europe, where for major projects a cross-Departmental approach focuses on cost and value to the nation as a whole. There appears to be no mechanism in the UK to measure the cross-government impact of a contract going overseas, where short-term redundancies and long-term loss of skills shift the problem from MOD to the DHSS and other Departments: good value for money for MOD perhaps, but poor value for the nation.”
	I agree with that analysis.
	Why do the Government not add defence to their sectoral industrial strategies for aerospace, automotives and the life sciences? The defence industry is economically vital as well as strategically critical to this country. It has annual revenues of more than £22 billion and directly employs more than 100,000 highly skilled workers. The defence growth partnership, which is chaired jointly by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and the managing director of MBDA, which was an excellent appointment, is a good, tentative start, but it needs to be translated into an active strategy that maintains for the long term our operational capability and our economic and industrial competitive advantage.
	The Bill, if anything, takes us further away from that objective by creating additional pressure to focus on the narrow definitions of cost, value for money and off-the-shelf solutions. It fails to take account of the long-term impact that procurement decisions have on manufacturing, industry and innovation in this country. In the long run, overemphasising price and purchasing defence equipment off the shelf at the expense of value and national capability may cost us more in terms of our defence flexibility and our defence manufacturing base, and may cause a reduction in the levels of research, investment, intellectual property and design capability in the UK.

Madeleine Moon: I agree with every point that my hon. Friend has made so far. One area that he has not addressed is accountability. For example, will we be able to call the chief executive of the GoCo before the Defence Committee to be challenged on the spending of public money? Is accountability of concern to my hon. Friend and will he address it in his speech?

Iain Wright: The question of accountability is important, and I seem to remember that my hon. Friend mentioned it in a telling intervention on the Secretary of State. The House needs assurance that we are getting the best value possible for public money. There is a risk that we will focus too much on price without thinking about value. My hon. Friend raises another important point on accountability. As I understand it—the Minister might contradict me, as he will have far more of an understanding on this than I do—GoCo contracts will be up to nine years long, subject to performance. However, there is no opportunity for contract extension. After nine years, a full review of a GoCo contract will be carried out and put back out to the market.
	I have some concerns about that. First and foremost, the project lead-in time for defence projects is often decades. If a project is at least 10 years long, how can a nine-year contract provide any degree of certainty? If a project—whether the development and roll-out of a new ship or a new fighter—takes 15 years to develop and is in operation for a further 30 years, where is the inbuilt institutional memory and stability that allows for truly effective project management if the contract changes three or four times? Will that not make a project more expensive and prone to risk?
	The overriding consideration of business, especially in such a vital sector, is certainty. A lack of certainty, and a correspondent increase in risk, increases costs within the main contractor and throughout the supply chain. As ADS has said:
	“Industry needs both transparency of future intent and stability of intent to enable essential strategic business planning. Since SDSR there has not been the necessary clarity.”
	The manner in which the GoCo might be set up makes that instability even worse.
	I mentioned that a nine-year GoCo contract cannot be re-awarded. I fail to see how the re-awarding of a contract can be inherently negative. I hope the Minister can explain some of the thinking behind that. Surely the notion that a contractor is up for a contract again would at least keep them on their toes when it comes to performance.
	On part 2, I share the understanding and concerns of the Chair of the Defence Committee about how the single source regulations office might put UK companies at a disadvantage. My understanding is that clause 14(7) allows the Secretary of State to waive the new regulations from any single-source contract he wishes, but that overseas suppliers will be outside the jurisdiction of the new single-source contract regulation. Does that not create an unlevel playing field, where only UK companies will be subject to the new pricing and reporting requirements? If we are to have a true industrial strategy—long-term stability, with co-operation across Government —how will this help to provide UK companies and their supply chains with a level playing field?
	The UK brand is strong when it comes to defence capability: we are the envy of the world. Our defence capability is part of a strong, modern and innovative manufacturing offer. While I strongly believe that the overriding consideration has to be whether a piece of equipment is compatible with the objectives of our armed forces in theatre, we undermine our economic competitive advantage if we fail to recognise how strong that offer is in the global market. A quarter of annual revenues in the UK defence sector, some £5.4 billion, is
	derived from exports. However, defence manufacturers tell me that export opportunities are being lost because some countries are saying in response to the narrow off-the-shelf approach, “If it is not good enough for the British armed forces, why should it be good enough for us?” How will the Bill deal with that, and will the GoCo system have an explicit remit to promote defence exports across the world?
	Clauses 7 and 8, which are concerned with intellectual property, have been mentioned by other hon. Members. The provisions allow the contractor access to confidential and commercially sensitive information. Our intellectual property regime is one of this country’s competitive advantages, with knowledge-based firms feeling that their invention and creation will be protected in law, yet clause 7 reduces the restrictions on the disclosure to, and use by, the contractor of confidential information. A defence firm, highly protective of its technological knowledge, which might be its unique selling point and give it its advantage in the marketplace, might be happy to share IP directly with the Government, especially if it was trying to establish a long-term relationship. Indeed, I would encourage that. It would also aid the MOD by providing it with sector intelligence on the pipeline of technological innovation over the next few years, which might aid operational planning, and I know the Minister has put in place other things in that regard. However, a company might be less happy about sharing such knowledge with a competitor. A small company in the supply chain might feel particularly vulnerable to the takeover of IP by a huge contractor conglomerate, so what safeguards will the Minister put in place to ensure that suppliers’ IP is adequately protected?
	I welcome the commitment on the procurement of equipment for our armed forces. Our servicemen and women fight for our country and deserve the best-possible equipment. In order to fulfil its objectives in theatre, this country deserves the highest-possible level of sophisticated, innovative military equipment. As part of that, consideration should be given to value for money for the taxpayer, but we should also be thinking about our defence industrial capability. So I finish where I began. The provisions in the Bill are fraught with risk and uncertainty and might undermine Britain’s defence industrial capability. I hope that these issues will be resolved appropriately during the Bill’s passage through the House.

Peter Luff: I am provoked by the speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and tempted to tear up my speech and demolish his instead. I shall resist that temptation, however, save for one thing: we should be careful what we say about exports, because often, by acquiring a capability overseas, we can build a defensive strategic relationship with another country that brings much greater long-term benefits to the UK. The classic example of that was the acquisition of the military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in South Korea, which led to a family of tankers being developed in consultation with BMT, the excellent British design house, and a range of equipment being fitted on to those tankers, not just by the British Navy but by other navies too. More importantly, however, that deal led to the South Korean Government deciding
	that they would like a strategic relationship with the UK, as a result of which, Rolls-Royce got into the marine market there with its propulsion systems, and now AugustaWestland is sending AW159 helicopters there. Sometimes a short-term decision to buy overseas—such decisions are often deplored by the
	Daily Mail
	, which does not understand defence acquisition at all—can actually be the right decision for Britain’s strategic interests globally and for British jobs, so I advise caution about that. The South Korean example is a model of how to acquire capability in the best interests of the country, economically and strategically.
	Returning to the Bill, it is a Bill I feel rather nostalgic about and that I would like to be supporting from the Front Bench, rather than the Back Benches, but I am delighted by the challenging yet consensual nature of the debate. It has been conducted in exactly the right spirit for something so important. I was particularly heartened by the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State. I genuinely believe that the Bill will help to secure the improvements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) when he was Secretary of State, and now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the current Secretary of State. Big changes have happened. The armed forces are now well equipped, and we want to keep it that way. I remember hearing Brigadier Bob Bruce speaking to the media when he took 4th Mechanized Brigade to Helmand last year. He described the taskforce as
	“the best prepared and best equipped task force the United Kingdom has ever put into the field”.
	That is a big step forward from what we are used to in this country and one the whole House should welcome. That process began under the last Government. It is an example of where improvements have been made and sustained, and we are now in a much better place than we were.
	The taxpayer’s interests are better protected too. The equipment black hole has been closed. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is not in his place, so I cannot provoke him on that point, but there certainly was an overheated equipment programme. How big it was is a matter for debate. If anything, I think the £38 billion figure is an underestimate, but it was a black hole and it has been closed.

Thomas Docherty: Standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), let me challenge this point yet again. The National Audit Office report, which the hon. Gentleman referred to in a roundabout way, said that, if there had been no uplift in spend, over a decade there would be a £38 billion black hole. Therefore, it was not that big in 2010, when he was in post. Does he accept that point?

Peter Luff: I do not want to get bogged down, but I agree that the £38 billion figure depends on the assumptions made. Those assumptions were too generous, actually, to the last Government and the true size of the black hole was nearer £60 billion or £70 billion, but that is another debate. That is my sincerely held view.
	On the whole, I do not think it right for ex-Ministers to boast about their achievements, particularly as anything achieved in a Department is always shared with many other players. However, I was pleased that the National
	Audit Office’s major projects report for 2011, dealing with the 16 major biggest defence acquisition programmes, said—among some words of criticism, of course, for how things were being managed; it was not a totally clean bill of health—the following:
	“In recent years we have reported several times that the Department has had to slip projects or cut equipment numbers to bridge the gap between estimated funding and the forecast cost of the defence budget. These decisions were not value for money and meant that new capabilities were not available on time. There are no such instances recorded this year”.
	That is the way we need to keep it. I believe that this Bill is the way to achieve that massive step forward.

Julian Brazier: I do not make interventions like this very often, but my hon. Friend is being too bloody modest—excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. He must take some of the credit for that extraordinary achievement.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very proud indeed to have been part of the team that achieved that. In fact, the only change being made to the budget now is to put new bits of equipment into it, which is a huge sea change from the world that all of us involved in defence have known over many years.
	The Government have set out a clear policy to sustain those improvements. I say to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that if I were publishing now the White Paper that I published last January or February, I would call it “Defence-Industrial Strategy”, because that is what it is. At that stage, there was a degree of nervousness in the Government about the phrase “industrial strategy”, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now won that argument. I see what we have now as an effective defence-industrial strategy that will drive up the competitiveness and effectiveness of British industry, particularly by protecting investment in science and technology—again, that is a debate for another day. My argument with the hon. Gentleman is this: it is broken and it does need fixing. I agree that there are risks with any change, but this is a change that needs to be made. I am conservative by nature, and one of my favourite quotations is from Viscount Falkland, who said in 1641:
	“When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
	On this occasion, I believe it is genuinely necessary to change.
	I will quickly work through the Bill in reverse, if I may. On reserves, I will not add to the excellent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), to whose work in this area I pay mutual tribute. He really has done a first-rate job on our reserves, and the whole House—indeed, the whole armed forces—owes him a great debt of gratitude. Concerns have been expressed about the number of reserves we need to fulfil the Government’s aspirations. I always divide numbers by parliamentary constituencies to get a sense of their scale, and in this case we are talking about an average of about 50 for each constituency. That is not a huge number. I genuinely believe that what the Government are doing will help us to recruit some of the specialists we need, as the White Paper says, particularly in the area of cyber-security. Keeping skills up to date is important in the real world as well. The reserves have a
	hugely important role, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s comments when he winds up.
	Let me turn to the single-source pricing regulations. It was time for a radical review. I commend page 20 of the impact assessment to the House, which lists the major structural changes to have taken place since 1968, when the yellow book was first introduced. Let me emphasise the point—this cannot be said too often—that this is not an attack on the profit of the defence industries; it is an attack on their cost base. A reasonable rate of return is what the defence industries need to sustain their activity in the UK. This is not an attack on their rate of return for their shareholders, but, as I say, on their cost base. Frankly, I have seen past examples of the cost base being—shall we say?—artificially inflated in a way I found totally unacceptable. There has been abuse.
	We in this House also ought to say a big thank you to Lord Currie of Marylebone, who did so much hard work to produce the “Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations”, the document published in, I think, October 2011. I will quote my own words—because I said them better then than I could today—from the foreword to that report:
	“Tackling industry’s cost-base and improving the MOD’s procurement process are at the heart of this Government’s transformation agenda for Defence.”
	Importantly, I also said:
	“Making industry more efficient should not only achieve value for money to the taxpayer, but also lead to a more competitive role for the UK industry in the export market.”
	I was particularly pleased by the emphasis that Lord Currie put in his report on small and medium-sized enterprises. Again, I said in my introduction:
	“Small and Medium Enterprises…would have fewer data reporting requirements and a simplified profit rate process. Larger contractors would be expected to provide an annual statement on how they have engaged SMEs in their supply chain.”
	It is a hugely important development in the single-source pricing regulations review that we will now ask contractors to say what they are doing to help SMEs in their supply chains, because so much of the innovation in modern defence comes from SMEs. We want to know that they are being helped and encouraged by the primes—the big contractors—and I am sure the report will be important in ensuring that that happens.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Hartlepool and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Defence Committee Chairman, about single-source pricing regulations and possible exemptions for foreign companies. In fact, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to exempt individual qualifying contracts from the process, but I agree that it could be used to exempt foreign companies. I cannot think at present of many examples of a non-competitive contract going to an overseas contractor, and this would not affect FMS—foreign military sales—as I understand it, so the Tomahawk missiles, for example, would not be covered by the regulations.
	There is a powerful point here about the risk of creating a perverse incentive, should foreign companies be exempt, for British contractors to move more of their operations overseas to escape the new regulations.
	I hope there will be a truly level playing field and that the American defence contractors—who typically will be affected by the regulations—will genuinely be affected and not exempted from them. I also obviously expect the Single Source Regulations Office to be truly independent and sympathetic to the needs of small and medium-sized contractors, as the industry suggests.
	Turning to Defence Equipment and Support itself, potentially the most controversial part of the Bill, getting the budget balanced was the easy bit. It did not seem so at the time—certainly not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—but keeping the budget balanced is going to prove a lot harder. Acquisition reform is going to be central to achieving that.
	I am delighted about the bipartisan process that has been adopted, and I have a bit of an apology for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) who is on the Opposition Front Bench. Last year, we worked through the complex issues associated with this development but did not keep her properly informed about how things were developing. I am grateful for the sympathetic meeting we had in my office some time last year, when we brought her up to date on our thinking. I apologise, in that we got too obsessed with the internal processes of government and did not do enough to communicate how our thinking was developing.
	Bernard Gray was a special adviser to the last Labour Government and is Chief of Defence Matériel for this Government. His report of 2009 called for a GoCo. That was not the initial view of Ministers in this Government, but we changed our minds as we listened to the argument. I was rather amused by the response of officials to his report. When I took on the ministerial portfolio it was all, “Well, we all knew it was like that; we don’t need Bernard Gray to tell us this. It will all be absolutely fine. He told us nothing new at all”. Actually, he did tell us something new. He put it all together in a powerful and punchy way, and I am sure the issues had never been analysed as coherently and consistently as they were by Bernard Gray.
	I was presented with the document entitled, “The Defence Strategy for Acquisition Reform”, which was a product of the last Government. It was a classic piece of Sir Humphrey-like bureaucratic obfuscation and box-ticking, with apparent action being the substitute for effective change. It provided a mass of detailed actions that gave the appearance of doing something while doing absolutely nothing whatever. Now, we all speak with unanimity about the dangers of an overheated equipment programme, about the conspiracy of optimism on programme costs, about the high price of requirement creep—huge steps forward—and about the lack of key commercial and engineering skills at DE&S.
	I was struck by some of Bernard Gray’s comments in an interview in Civil Service World—a publication I like to read every week or month when it comes out. He said:
	“If industry wants to go out and hire the best lawyers, the best programme managers, they can; and all the choices they make create costs that we bear. So we’re paying them to upgrade their side of the equation, but we don’t pay to have those skills available to our own side.”
	That is a very important point indeed. I think we now understand that we have to keep the equipment programme balanced, to create proper boundaries between DE&S and the customers and to ensure that DE&S has the skills, processes and incentives to keep costs down.
	DE&S does most of its work extremely well, and its staff deserve a pat on the back and to be congratulated more often than they are. The phenomenal work done recently on urgent operational requirements and operations should be a cause for deep and warm congratulations. Sometimes the staff are unfairly pilloried by some members of the national media, and there are nowhere as many of them as is sometimes said. The current headcount—I look to the Minister for reassurance here—is some 14,000 or 15,000 after a series of very steep reductions in recent years. I believe that only some 8,000 civilians would transfer to the new GoCo if such a transfer were to take place, with around 2,000 military secondees—some 10,000 people, which is much smaller than the 29,000 figure one often hears quoted by cynics.
	I have three specific concerns about the GoCo. First, could we write the contract? I have been reassured on that and believe that the suggested phased approach addresses the issue sensibly. Secondly, would it offer value for money? I believe it will, and we will know very soon. It is right for the House to be exposed to this argument in as much detail as possible, consistent with commercial confidentiality and not prejudicing the Department’s commercial position.
	Finally, would our allies be happy, especially about the security question? I have seen some alarmist reports in the specialist media about the American view and I am confident that that can be addressed. We have a GoCo already for the most secret thing we do—that is, nuclear warheads—and there is no reason why we cannot address those concerns. Our nuclear propulsion plants and our submarines are already built by the private sector and there is no reason why we cannot write the kind of guarantees our foreign allies would seek.
	I have a number of questions, some of which echo points that have already been made. First, on the point made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), will DE&S be incentivised to support exports? That is an important question and we need to know how that will be achieved. Secondly, will the system have enough flexibility to cope with sudden surges caused by operations? Will there be sudden meetings of lawyers and specialists to discuss contract amendments, or will we be able to deal with sudden and rapid surges in demand? Industry is right to worry about intellectual property protection, and clause 7 and schedule 2 will need particularly careful scrutiny in Committee.
	Above all, I am worried about the speed of progress. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Committee about the invitation to negotiate. Time is slipping through our fingers and—call me cynical—I still fear there might be people in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the higher echelons of the MOD who do not like the idea and might like to kill it by civil servants’ favourite device of time-wasting. I hope there are no such processes under way and that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me that after the rapid progress we have made, there will be no slippage in the invitation to negotiate, as urgency is needed.
	I believe that only radical change will secure the behavioural changes we need in defence. It is not just about numbers on a bit of paper but changing people’s mindset. We need to ask what the taxpayer’s relationship is with the armed forces and what we need to do to improve the way we operate. Even if the value for money case is finely balanced, the behavioural changes
	a GoCo would introduce would make it worth deciding to go for a GoCo. I hope a modest, finely balanced judgment will not be used as an excuse for not proceeding. Only if the value for money case was clearly negative would there be grounds to pause and think again.
	In the preface to his 2011 report, Lord Currie of Marylebone summed up my attitude to the procurement aspects of the Bill:
	“The reward is a more stable environment for the single source defence sector, where industry is more cost competitive in export markets, and the MOD maintains a balanced budget. That balance will avoid the need to cut or delay programmes and greatly reduce the level of waste that results, with benefit to the MOD and industry, including SMEs. This is a much healthier position for both parties, and one that should help to take them out of the spotlight. The real prize…will be better value for money for taxpayers and a better equipped front-line.”
	That is what the Bill will deliver.

Thomas Docherty: Let me begin by following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who said that ex-Ministers probably should not boast about their achievements. I say gently to the ex-Minister that if they do not do the boasting, there is probably no one else who will do it on their behalf.
	I think we have been greatly served over the past two decades by a succession of good, generous and genuine procurement Ministers, not least Lord Gilbert who so sadly passed away just a few short weeks ago. The spirit of the debate on both sides of the House is testimony to the fact that we believe that providing our men and women who serve so bravely with the correct equipment is an issue on which we should not make too much of a party political point—although Members will forgive me, as we are in Parliament, for making some observations in my speech.
	I have a specific question for the Minister, which he may wish to consider, on the reserves and the territorial extent of the provisions. The explanatory notes state that the Bill’s scope on reservists will extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—so, to Crown dependencies—but do not mention the overseas territories. It is my understanding that Bermuda and Gibraltar raise TA units, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the provisions will not extend to Gibraltar and Bermuda. I know that the Minister is already thinking carefully about the answer he will give me.
	There has been some suggestion that the budget is now balanced, but unfortunately the Defence Committee’s view has been that as the Secretary of State has consistently refused to show us the books, we have no way of upholding that judgment. The Prime Minister—he is only the Prime Minister and not Lynton Crosby, so he is not actually running the Government—has said that his preference is for a real-terms increase from 2015 or 2016, but there is some confusion about the date he meant. Perhaps the Minister will explain what will happen if there is no real-terms increase. Will the books go out of budget? This returns me to my exchange with the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. If the books are balanced only in the event of a real-terms increase beyond 2015, I am afraid that we shall have another black hole, whether the Minister likes it or not.
	I am something of a sceptic when it comes to a GoCo, for a reason that the Minister heard me give only last week when he met members of the Defence Committee representing both sides of the House. There are three reasons for the overruns and programme delays that have led to some of the biggest procurement problems in the last 20 years: those involving the Type 45 destroyer, the joint strike fighter and the Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
	First, there is the conspiracy between the defence industry and the services. The industry wants the work and the services want the kit, so they artificially drive down the cost that they declare to Ministers for each project. Surprisingly enough, once the main gate decision has been reached, the costs start to rise to fairly extreme levels. We also see decisions being pushed to the right. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, Labour must take some responsibility—our hands were not entirely clean in this regard—but it is not a new problem.
	Secondly, there is the chopping and changing of programmes. We saw that when, following the strategic defence and security review, a carrier decision was changed in favour of a sea variant. After £100 million had been wasted in 18 months, the new Secretary of State made the correct decision to return to the B variant, but unfortunately we are where we are, and, regrettably, the taxpayer is down £100 million. Thirdly, there is the problem of immature decision making on the part of the MOD and the services. They do not necessarily understand what their requirements are in the longer term, and that drives up costs.
	The GoCo will not solve any of those problems, but strong ministerial leadership would help to alleviate at least two of them, if not all three. I hope that the Minister will explain how the MOD will tackle the buy-in conspiracies, the chopping and changing, and the lack of mature decision making.
	As was made clear by my Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard)—and, indeed, by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—the Committee feels quite strongly about the research budget. We spend only 1.2% of the defence budget on research and development, and not all that money is going to United Kingdom companies. We are, in effect, subsidising other nations. The Defence Committee has an aspiration—it cannot be described as a pledge—to reach a spending level of 2%, and, crucially, we think that that money should be spent on UK companies. We must support our own companies, as the Americans and the French do. We should welcome an update from the Minister on the progress of, for instance, the remotely piloted aircraft programme. I understand that Sentinel will not be funded beyond 2015, and it would be helpful to understand the implications of that now.
	May I press the Minister to say more about how two programmes will be dealt with under either GoCo or single source? I will not make my speech about Trident today, because we shall have a three-hour debate on the subject tomorrow, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how the common missile programme will be dealt with, in practical terms, under the new arrangements. I should also like to know how the joint
	strike fighter programme will be dealt with, given the genuine concern that has been expressed by our closest ally about GoCo and the new arrangements.
	I am slightly disappointed that the Bill contains no provision to tackle the “revolving doors”. The Committee is concerned not just about the revelations in The Sunday Times about generals and admirals leaving on a Friday afternoon and popping up in the defence industry on a Monday morning, but about the more general policy. I am not specifically criticising the Bill here, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what steps he intends to take, so that we avoid this culture and what appears to the Committee to be an unhealthy relationship between some of our senior military leadership and the defence industry is tidied up.
	It is easy to knock civil servants. Politicians have never lost a vote by having a go—[Interruption.] Except in Cheltenham, where I suspect that if a politician knocked the civil servants, they would probably lose quite a lot of their votes. On the whole, however, knocking civil servants is not a difficult gig, and successive Governments have perhaps been guilty of doing that. I think we must recognise the contribution made by our civil servants, however, as we would not have a procurement programme or a functioning defence industry without them. I hope the Minister will say that this is not going to turn into an exercise in beating up civil servants.
	I cannot see anything in the Bill about how the pay and conditions for those for whom Bernard Gray wants greater flexibility will be set. The Defence Committee is very concerned that Mr Gray may be seeking to have the power to set the pay and conditions for his management team without ministerial buy-in. Will the Minister explain how he will ensure that there will be ministerial accountability for all the pay and conditions awarded to Mr Gray and his team? We understand the argument about increasing competitiveness, but we must not get into some of the situations that have developed elsewhere, with personal contracts and off-the-books arrangements and tax avoidance, such as for the chief executive of the Student Loans Company. Will the Secretary of State still have to sign-off all individual packages, or does the Minister expect that to be delegated to Mr Gray and his successors?
	On the point about invitation to negotiate, it is my understanding that we have seen a slippage from July to August. Can the Minister confirm whether that is indeed the case, and does he understand the concern felt by me and many other Members across the House in respect of the aspirational timeline he has set and the possibility that it will become harder to meet the deadlines? I might not attribute this to the same cynical reasons as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), but can the Minister assure us that if the date has indeed been moved, there will be no rushing of the later stages to get us back on track?
	I appreciate the sentiment behind the aim of trying to transfer financial risk from the MOD to defence contractors, but does the Minister accept that in reality that is impossible, partly because we are talking about buying kit for our men and women serving on the front lines? The MOD will have to own and take accountability for those decisions, therefore, and any slippage or risk will ultimately be borne by the politicians, not BAE or Babcock or whoever else. I am also yet to be convinced that there is a practical way of transferring the financial
	risk, because. given the types and the size of the contracts, in the final analysis the MOD will still have to be the underwriter for those projects.
	I have asked the Minister this question before, but I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask again: which country does he hold up as a good example of defence procurement? We often hear about the bad examples, but I have yet to hear that there is any good example. Perhaps the Chinese, for the obvious reason they tend to chop people’s heads off when it goes wrong? Which country would the Minister hold up as doing procurement well? The United States has some of the worst examples of procurement. We need only to look at the Strike fighter to see that. That project’s costs have increased 100% in the past 10 years, from $100 million per airframe to $191 million.

Julian Brazier: Sweden, a country of just 8 million people, developed its own fast jet fighter. Its defence industry has an astonishing record of not only using high-quality equipment but finding diverse civil applications for many of its products.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has made that point about Sweden to the Defence Committee as well. I take on board the point that he is making about the Saab Gripen. My understanding is that the Swedes would say that they procure less badly than us or the United States; they would not say that they were a great procurer. The hon. Gentleman is probably right, however, and he has probably helped the Minister to avoid doing some homework. Sweden might be a reasonable example, although it does not have a fantastic track record on procurement schemes.
	Let us bear in mind some of the problems that we have coming down the road, including the strike fighter. I apologise to my colleagues on the Defence Committee for having been something of a sceptic about the whole procurement system. An example can be seen in air-to-air refuelling. The A-variant of the strike fighter, which the US air force, Australia and most of our European allies are procuring, uses a probe and drogue refuelling system, whereas the B-variant and the C-variant, which we and the US Marine Corps are buying, use a boom refuelling system. Unfortunately, the two systems are not compatible with each other, so if the RAF were to win its argument for the A-variant, it would have to retrofit the Voyager tankers to enable them to be refuelled. That is an example of the UK, the US and others not being joined up, and it is absurd that we have got into such a situation. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the carrier, but the Defence Committee found that there had been an “immature understanding” of the decisions on the strike fighter and the carrier, and that not enough detailed work had been done before decisions were made. Will the Minister tell us how he is going to fix that problem?
	There is a great deal to commend in the Bill. The fact that we have heard supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Benchers and from Back Benchers, who are not always sympathetic to the Secretary of State’s arguments, bodes well for the legislation. We all wish the Bill God speed.

Penny Mordaunt: I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I should like to start by paying tribute, as others have done, to the two reservists who died on the
	Brecon Beacons. My thoughts are with them and their families, and with their colleague who is still ill in hospital. I would also like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) about the volunteers who assisted the reservists on that day. I am glad that he was able to put our thanks to them on record.
	There clearly needs to be an inquiry into the incident, but I want to take this opportunity to put on record my sadness at the line being taken by some people, whom we might call “reservist sceptics”, that the death of those two young men is evidence that we cannot rely on reservists. We have lost those two young men, but in the past we have lost people from the regulars, too. We need to wait for an inquiry to find out what went wrong in this case, and there should be no attempt in the meantime to draw conclusions or wild and false deductions from this tragic event. I hope that all Members will support those sentiments.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for letting me speak. As a company commander, I very nearly lost two regular soldiers on a 12-mile march in Akamas early one morning. They suffered heat exhaustion followed by heatstroke, but their lives were saved because we were near water—the Mediterranean. We chucked them in until the rescue helicopters came. Anyone who suggests that the two young men died on the Brecon Beacons because reservists are in some way substandard is way out of line. I suspect that all hon. Members would agree that such an assessment is fallacious and wrong.

Penny Mordaunt: I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend’s intervention, as his experience in this matter will back up my point.
	In my experience, reservists are extremely dedicated individuals who have to reach the same standards as the regulars. The joint training between the two, instigated in the past few years and which it has been my privilege to experience, has been very powerful indeed. To achieve the recruitment and training we need for our future reserve forces, we need to focus on the detail and the dry administration: we need to ensure that people are getting their medicals swiftly; and their identity cards, joint personnel administration accounts and insurance cover need to be processed quickly if we are to retain interest from new recruits and deliver the throughput we need to regenerate that capability.
	I am extremely pleased at the attention given and the offer made on strengthening the package not only to reservists, but to their employers. That is an excellent piece of work. I also hope that we will be able to focus on problems that lie in particular professions, where reservists are having real difficulty in meeting their training and deployment commitments. Anecdotally, teachers always seem to top that list, but one would think that that profession would be well geared up to cope with reservists, given the supply teaching system. I hope the Minister will be able to give that some attention.
	There has been much focus on the issue of reserve forces as the major challenge facing the MOD, but I would argue that it is tiny in comparison with the challenges on Defence Equipment and Support. What we have had has not been fit for purpose; earlier in this Parliament, I highlighted the case of a frigate that was
	deployed to Libya with no defensive weapons on board. Historically, we seem to have been incapable of getting what we needed, where we needed it and in a state in which we could use it. It will be some time before these reforms come into effect. They are very much needed and I very much welcome them, but they will not take effect immediately. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the status quo will not remain in the interim. We cannot wait for this Bill to take effect for further progress to be made; we need further improvements now. I very much recognise the considerable progress that has already been made, but it must continue and pick up pace.
	Immense changes lie ahead for our armed forces and in how we procure for them. We must seek to protect our sovereign capabilities and the unique research, development and supply chain networks so evident in constituencies such as mine. We need to have a clear vision of what industrially is in our national interest. We need to consider: what technology should we be investing in with our research and development funds? What do we build enough of over a given cycle? What is genuinely innovative? What kit could we be using in trade deals, for example? To which countries should we be exporting? Clearly there are countries to which we do not want to sell particular kit, but it might be to our advantage, for diplomatic and defence reasons, to sell them naval assets to protect their oil platforms, for example. Outside the MOD we need a more sophisticated view on exports.
	Much scepticism has been expressed in the Chamber this afternoon about an off-the-shelf approach, but people could be very reassured by reading the White Paper produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is no longer in his place. [Hon. Members: “He is over there.”] I am glad that he is here for the pat on the back that I am giving him. That excellent White Paper captured the necessary subtleties when considering whether to retain particular sovereign capabilities and focusing on our national interests. We need to learn from the example of the MARS tanker contract, which he cited, because although a proposal might seem on paper to be the best decision for the budget and the procurement process, we must be aware of its knock-on effects on the supply chain. A number of companies would have found it difficult to get a foot in the door to supply kit for that project, including large companies with an export rate close to 50% of what they produce. We must learn from such experiences and guard against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
	For understandable reasons, the previous strategic defence and security review was not strategic enough. We therefore must ensure not only that the next one is strategic, but that a strategic approach permeates our defence procurement, because only then will we get the best value from our budget.
	If the Minister will forgive me, I shall conclude by returning to a campaign about which he has heard me speak many times. As he sorts out the tangled mess of contracts that he has inherited, I hope that he will consider the case that building two ocean patrol vessels for the Royal Navy would be the best use of the budget. Obviously, I would want them to be built in Portsmouth,
	which would give the city a couple more years to put in place an excellent plan for the future of the dockyard. It would provide the overstretched Royal Navy with a couple more hulls, as well as freeing up the existing and future frigate fleet from undertaking tasks for which, frankly, frigates are not needed. I have bored the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Ministers from the Ministry of Defence to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about this, and I thank them all for giving up their time to listen to me.

Julian Brazier: I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend’s compelling speech, but may I suggest that she could not possibly bore on that subject? She is absolutely right from a shipbuilding angle, as well as from the point of view of flexibility and value in the Navy, so full marks to her.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the proposal would be a good idea for the Royal Navy and the taxpayer, as well something that would cheer him up no end. If the Minister agreed to my proposal, my happiness could be topped only if he also announced that he intended to revive the names HMS Portsmouth and HMS Penelope, which have been absent from the surface fleet for far too long. I thank him not only for listening, but for all the work that has gone into this excellent Bill.

Stephen Doughty: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who speaks with a great deal of personal experience from her commitment to her reserve career.
	My thoughts and prayers are also with the families and friends of the two service personnel, including Lance Corporal Craig Roberts, who perished in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend, as well as with the soldier who remains seriously ill in hospital. Although our service personnel—regulars and reserves—are aware of the risks and challenges inherent in their service selection and training, and while we must all accept the necessity of gruelling and challenging assessment procedures, especially for our special forces, such processes should never be exempt from appropriate scrutiny by the MOD and external authorities. I hope that there will be a full and thorough investigation of the tragic events as a matter of urgency, especially in the light of the equally tragic death of Captain Robert Carnegie in the Brecon Beacons some months ago, also during a selection process. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), I pay tribute to the work of the mountain rescue services and other rescue services in the Brecon Beacons that had to deal this weekend with not only the events I mentioned, but two tragic drownings in reservoirs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in Brecon and Radnorshire.
	Those tragic events occurred at a time when the Government are about to make some of the most significant changes in a generation to the make-up of our armed forces, especially with regard to the crucial relationships between the regulars, ex-regulars and reservists who make up our armed forces. The increasing demands that will be made on our reservists in operations, training and levels of recruitment will have a series of wide-ranging
	consequences that we may not be able to foresee in their entirety at this stage. I hope the Government will keep those under continuous assessment and ensure that if any further changes are needed in future, those are made.
	I associate myself with the comments of the hon. and gallant Lady. I have no doubts whatever about the capability and commitment of individual reservists. I have seen that for myself in Helmand, where I saw reservists fully integrated into our operations there and doing incredible work. I met a senior civil servant who was a reservist contributing to our operations at Camp Bastion. I have also seen the work of our reservists at home. I have seen that in Wales in my constituency and in the region, where they play crucial roles, from preparing for civil emergencies to liaising with merchant shipping and to protecting the Olympics, which Cardiff was delighted to play its part in hosting last summer.
	I was delighted a few weeks ago to be able to watch veterans, regulars, ex-regulars, reserves and cadets all march down the street together in Penarth in my constituency in recognition of Armed Forces day, and a few days later to see a similar gathering of regulars, reserves and others to celebrate Armed Forces day in Cardiff and, in particular, to learn about the work of the Royal Naval Reserve from the commander of HMS Cambria in Sully on the border of my constituency—work which draws on many of my constituents. I am well aware of the excellent work done by the other three facilities—the newly named Army Reserve in Cardiff at Morgan street, again on the borders of my constituency, Maindy barracks, which brought my father to Cardiff many years ago with the Army youth team, and in Gabalfa avenue.
	The image that I saw of our regulars and our reserves marching together united down the street in a coherent and seamless fashion is clearly the Government’s intention in the reserve forces changes set out in the Bill, but I hope the Government show more coherence in the execution of that strategy than they did in the confusion surrounding announcements in the House recently.
	I shall make a few brief remarks about the recruitment of reservists and in particular the move to a 70:30 split, which is a significant change predicated on a successful available uplift of the reserve capacity, while the regular Army, as we have heard from many hon. Members, faces a loss of 20,000 troops. The uplift is planned regardless of the timing and the coherence of the two changes and one being contingent on the other. We should be careful that no gaps in capacity or capability occur as a result. The Secretary of State admitted in a statement the other week in the House that many current reserve units remain heavily under-recruited, which is the justification for closing or rationalising a number of them.
	From the details of the strategy, I am not yet totally convinced that the recruitment levels will meet expectations, particularly in view of the barriers to bringing reservists in that many hon. Members have spoken about and despite the measures in the Bill, a number of which are extremely welcome. The Bill sets out a number of measures to help us recruit more reservists and retain them in their employment. There are measures in clause 44 to deal with additional payments and measures in clause 43 to deal with unfair dismissal. As we have heard from others, little is said about the barriers that some reservists
	or potential reservists face in squaring their reserve career with potential new employers.

Dai Havard: Before my hon. Friend moves on to the particulars of the people being recruited, does he agree that one important consideration is that the figures given relate to ambitions for 2018 and 2020? We are on a journey from here to there. Therefore the sequencing of the number of reserves against the number of regulars may need to be monitored very carefully in order to see whether the ambitions set out can be achieved against the timings set out.

Stephen Doughty: I absolutely agree. There are some real questions that must be asked. Other significant changes are going on at the same time as this transition in the composition of our armed forces, such as the return of troops from Afghanistan and Germany, which are major logistical challenges.
	I hope that all employers would see the value of having reservists on their staff, quite apart from demonstrating their commitment to wider national purposes, but sadly the reality is that we often see differences. Even when employers recognise that value, there are some genuine challenges, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) outlined, particularly for smaller companies. Obviously, that will be particularly so given the increased number of conditions under which our reserves can be deployed and the length of those deployments.
	Therefore, will the Minister assure us that clear measures will be set out to support reservists in handling difficult questions from new or existing employers about the changes proposed by the Bill? The Bill and recent announcements have generated a great deal of media interest, which might have put worries or concerns into the minds of new or existing employers. I want to ensure that reservists and those who wish to join the reserves are properly equipped to deal with those challenges when asked questions by employers.
	I understand that the MOD has outlined its intention to gather further evidence of any disadvantages faced by reservists and perhaps take further measures in a future armed forces Bill. The Secretary of State mentioned a website, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans for a more comprehensive survey of those challenges, particularly over the transitional period in the months ahead. What surveying and information gathering will take place to ensure that there will be a response to any challenge that arises, whether in a particular sector of employment or particular areas of the country?
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said, there is evidence of real concern resulting from those comments, as last year the Army Reserve recruitment target was missed by more than 4,000. I want more assurances from Ministers that we will not see a rise in that figure. A worrying survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has shown that a third of employers said that nothing, including the measures set out in the Bill, would encourage them to take on reservists. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact on some reservists—hopefully only a few—who might to choose to leave the service given the changes in the length of deployment and other changes outlined in the Government’s proposals that might not
	fit their personal circumstances or the expectations they had when they first signed up?
	I do not want to paint a bleak picture. I would certainly be willing to speak to any employer in my constituency who is worried about employing a reservist and to talk about the benefits for them and the employee. Nevertheless, we must recognise that there will be a major shift in numbers and expectations. I worry whether the Government might simply be over-reaching themselves, which could leave us with gaps in capability or put stresses and strains on our overall reserve forces that are not sustainable. The Secretary of State tried to brush off that concern earlier by describing it as a potential for “lumpiness” in the transition process, but that might understate the risk. How long does he expect that “lumpiness” to persist and what exact impact does he think it will have on capability? As I said, that comes alongside some major logistical changes resulting from the return of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.
	Finally, I will turn briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised about procurement. I share the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised about the potential squeezing out of smaller companies in defence supply chains. I certainly am aware of that from conversations I have had with companies in my constituency, such as BCB International, which provides excellent services and products to UK and other NATO armed forces. It provides a significant majority of camouflage paint and a significant proportion of survival gear, non-lethal devices and blast-protection equipment, and it does some excellent and innovative work. I want to hear more assurances from Ministers that such companies will not lose out as a result of these changes and that they will continue to play a valuable and innovative role in our defence supply chains.

Martin Horwood: This has been a constructive and positive debate, and I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who made a valuable contribution to the debate along those lines. A discordant note was sounded by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who is no longer in his place, when he deviated into tomorrow’s debate on Trident and launched a bit of a pre-emptive strike on Liberal Democrat policy. Since Labour’s policy on nuclear weapons over the decades has itself been a bit of an unguided missile, it might be wise for Labour Members to look at the evidence and consider the possible value of the Trident alternatives review before finalising their policy too quickly.
	Other hon. and gallant Members have made valuable and interesting contributions, including the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is no longer in his place, who mentioned the allocation of command. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made a stinging indictment of past procurement policy and outcomes, and we would all echo the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), whose remarks about the reservists who died recently in the Brecon Beacons were well made. In a debate such as this it is right to pay tribute to the courage, commitment and loyalty of all our armed forces, and to emphasise that
	those who die in training are people of no less courage, loyalty and commitment than those who die on active service.
	This enabling Bill does not directly mandate the creation of a so-called GoCo procurement system, and neither does it set the terms of single-source contracts, the shape of new reserve forces or the plan for implementing them, as that is done in more detail in the White Paper. It does, however, give the Secretary of State power to change defence procurement and the way reservists are recruited and supported, and I think there is general consensus that such powers are badly needed, and that particularly for procurement, the existing system has not delivered. Let us consider some of the statistics: average timing overruns of 80%; cost overruns often 40% over estimate. Bernard Gray’s 2009 report suggested that we might be wasting as much as £1.5 billion a year through poor procurement. Clearly that cannot go on, and it is right for the Government to take tough decisions to tackle the issue.
	That does not mean, however, that there are no possible criticisms of the GoCo model—we have heard some in this debate, and in another place Lord Lee made pointed criticisms about the possibilities of a GoCo. I raised in this Chamber the possible complexity of having various bodies involved in procurement and trying to align it. Those bodies obviously include NATO, the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces and eventual contractors, and now we are inserting the GoCo level into that process. I highlighted to the Secretary of State the possible risks of inefficiencies and complexity entering the system, and his reply was good. He said that any structure contains the risk of inefficiency and waste creeping into the system, and that whatever structure we create, we must focus on good management and monitoring, and good assessment of cost effectiveness and management of contracts. I am sure that is right. It is clear that something has to change, and the Bill is going down the right path.
	Part 2 creates the regulatory framework for single-source contracts, which is an interesting case. The explanatory notes to the Bill explain the relevance of EU law, which requires most Government contracts to be subject to an open process involving
	“publicly advertising the fact that the contract is available for tender, and then a competitive process to select the successful contractor.”
	We have taken advantage, as have other states, of the exemption in the European treaties for
	“measures which a Member State considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security”.
	That is how single-source contracting has managed to develop on such a large scale. However, it has created the strange anomaly whereby there is currently no legal framework regulating defence single-source contracts, and so we are now putting in place something that will, in effect, regulate those contracts. I could make a small point about the value of the European Union on occasion, when we see exposed the fallacy of the argument advanced by some Members that we are beset by EU rules on all these issues. In this case, we find that where an EU rule does not apply, we feel the need to invent a substitute, and I am afraid that that would be the case in many other examples often cited in this Chamber. This is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we all instinctively know that where there are single suppliers, with no
	competition and no regulatory oversight, there is a real risk that uncompetitive results will be the outcome. We must address the obvious risk in the procurement of single-source contracts, and the Government are right to do so in this Bill.
	Part 3 makes changes to reserve forces. This is a sensitive area to deal with but it is very necessary to do so. As we move further into the 21st century, the threats that our military are asked to counter and the demands on them are changing, and we need to look at a more flexible and light-footed model of personnel. The Government plan by 2020 to change the numbers in the Army from 102,000 to 82,000 regular soldiers but to balance that by increasing the number of reserves from 15,000 to 30,000 by 2018, with smaller increases in the maritime reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, giving us a total reserve armed forces of about 35,000 people. That is a different model that will prove more flexible and more cost-effective but make certain demands as well. If we are to have that level of reliance on our Army Reserve forces, we need to take some of the steps that the Government have considered in providing access to and use of the same equipment and vehicles as regulars, increasing reserves’ training commitments to 40 days a year, and pairing reserve units with regular units for training and deployment purposes.
	I might add some ideas such as those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) about trying to promote reserve liability. He has particularly identified the Gurkhas as a group who might figurehead and lead that process. Automatic reserve liability for the Gurkhas would send a positive signal that we are aiming for parity of esteem between the regular forces and the reserves. We should also be encouraging ex-regulars consciously to engage with the reserves.
	I would like to draw attention to work that is being done in a slightly different context by a company based in my constituency. This may sound like a shameless plug for a local company, and perhaps it is, in a way. It is called Omega Resource Group and it is doing interesting work with 1 Rifles based on the employment of veterans, taking ex-regulars and trying to place them in civilian jobs in a way that makes the best use of their skills and markets those skills effectively. Although that might not seem immediately relevant, I think that it is. If we are to try to increase the demands on employers on behalf of our reserve forces, employers have to understand even more than before the value of having soldiers and military people as part of their establishment.
	Omega has made a very good case for that. It says that there are widespread myths among employers—for instance, that soldiers have institutionalised thinking and are incapable of thinking out of the box. Omega points out that exactly the opposite is true—that modern soldiers are brilliant at thinking out of the box, problem-solving, and thinking tactically and differently from the way that might be expected. That kind of skill, resilience and flexibility is exactly what we should be trying to sell to employers. We will have to do that selling job because we will be putting greater demands on them if these increased reserve commitments are to be successful. We need to look at companies like Omega and, I am sure, many others that have experience of military personnel—some will already employ ex-military personnel—who can help to make a success of the whole process.
	This is an enabling Bill that will allow us to move to a more flexible, light-footed, effective and, not unimportantly, cost-effective armed forces. For that reason, I am happy to join the seeming consensus throughout the Chamber in support of this very important measure.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to be the tail-end Charlie in this important Second Reading debate. I begin, as others have done, by declaring an interest as a member of the reserve forces and the military stabilisation and support group.
	While listening to this very interesting and informative debate, I had flashbacks to my time serving as a regular officer and some of the procurement problems our troops had with equipment, including the ever-promised better radio. The Bowman radio is now in use, but back in my day it was just a vision. We had the old Clansman set and must have been one of the few armies across the world still using open voice procedure that was not even encrypted. The SA80 was issued to us, only to be recalled because of problems with the catches. It was then mended and given back to us at double the cost of the original contract.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to place on record my gratitude to the Government Front Benchers for the work they have done not just in this area but right across defence. They deserve to be commended, particularly on procurement, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who worked very hard when he had that portfolio.
	The Bill is a reflection of how seriously this Government take defence matters and is another significant milestone in Ministry of Defence reforms since 2010. We have seen improved operational decision making, thanks to the National Security Council, and the creation of the Defence Board, the primary MOD decision-making body, which under the previous Government did not include the Secretary of State. We have seen the introduction of real-time control of major equipment programmes in order to stop spiralling costs and delays, and the major projects review board is taking note of and monitoring the top 20 programmes. A focus on British exports has led to an increase in the world market share, boosting support for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and the completion of the long overdue basing review ensures that Her Majesty’s forces are now represented right across the Union. We have also developed an exit strategy from Afghanistan after inheriting a war that had no clear mission, and we have enshrined in law, through the military covenant, the nation’s lifelong duty of care to those who serve in the armed forces. Finally, as has been said time and again, the Secretary of State and his team have, after inheriting a defence budget in deficit, managed to balance the MOD’s books.
	Those reforms continue with this Second Reading debate, which has focused on two main areas: the way in which equipment is procured, and the balancing of our regular and reserve forces. It is important to understand the landscape this Government inherited. I am afraid that a glance at Labour’s efforts on procurement makes worrying reading. The majority of the equipment projects ran over budget, as explained in detail by the National Audit Office major projects report of 2010. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas
	Docherty) and others are right to say that many legacy issues go further back in time, but during my time in the British Army—and certainly during my time in Parliament —we always asked why the issue of procurement was not being grasped in the way it has been today.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for allowing me to intervene. I was a staff officer in the Ministry of Defence in 1984, when the world was black and white. I well remember Michael Heseltine introducing a system called “lean look and sharp sword”, which we were told would sort out procurement for ever. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who implied that we have not got the answer to a maiden’s prayer. Whatever we get, we will still have—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need short interventions, not major speeches at this stage. I am sure that the question is coming.

Bob Stewart: There is no question; it is a statement. We have not got the solution and we will still have a problem.

Tobias Ellwood: I am very grateful for that statement. My hon. Friend makes an important point. A concern that dates back even to those times is that many of those who have been in charge of procurement have not stayed in their posts for long. Indeed, the people in uniform who filled those posts would spend six to 18 months on a project and, once they were conversant with it, would be rotated out and back to a front-line posting or elsewhere, and all that knowledge would be lost. The mistakes were made because the knowledge was not passed on correctly.
	I want to look at some of the big issues that have been mentioned in this debate. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers project, which started in 1998, was deliberately delayed by the last Government at a cost of more than £1 billion. The cost of the Nimrod spiralled out of control. Nine aircraft cost as much as three space shuttles. That was outrageous spending. When we came into government, we decided to stop that process, because not one of the aircraft was able to get an airworthiness certificate and get into the sky.
	The Typhoon has also been mentioned many times: an example of procuring for the last war rather than looking ahead. It is a cold war fighter plane that is unable to hit anything on the ground. Not only does it have no ground attack capability—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) wants to intervene I will happily give way; if not, I ask her please to listen to what I am saying.

Thomas Docherty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, then?

Tobias Ellwood: Let me finish this point about the Typhoon; then I will be delighted to give way. Unlike other aircraft of its generation, the Typhoon has a flight control system designed by one country and a weapons release system designed by another. That means that every time a missile system upgrade is required, two complex computer
	systems have to be reconciled, which makes it far too complicated and costly to do any major upgrades to the software or the missiles. That is why there is a delay in converting the Typhoon from an air-to-air aircraft to a multi-role aircraft with ground attack capability.

Thomas Docherty: My concern is that, as the tail-end batsman, the hon. Gentleman is bringing a level of partisanship to the debate that we have not had so far. He needs to say sorry for the part he played in the Defence team that did two ridiculous U-turns on the aircraft carrier, which opened a capability gap on carrier strike that would not otherwise have existed and that led to more money being wasted. I agree with his point about our time in government, but does he accept that his Government have also made mistakes?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I might be able to help everybody. I know that Mr Ellwood is going to discuss the Bill and will not continue discussing the theme of past events.

Tobias Ellwood: I accept your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not mention the AirTanker project or the fact that the last Government got rid of the Sea Harriers; I will certainly move on. There was a lack of clarity and direction under Labour and, I concede, under previous Governments. That was not just because of procurement, but because of the unclear strategies—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are going to discuss the Bill. We are not going to keep going back in time, as much as Mr Docherty is tempting you to do so, Mr Ellwood. I know that, as the tail-end Charlie, you want to deal with the Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: Again, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	If I may, I will talk about the complications in procurement projects that can cause costs to increase. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife gave the example of the Typhoon and said how the costs had ratcheted up. However, the F-16 is now seen as one of the most successful aircraft in the world, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen. It went through a torrid procurement process, but the unit cost has now shrunk because the problems have been removed and enough units have been sold to drive the price down. We are just beginning to grasp the nettle and we need to ensure that we can sell such equipment across the world.
	With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will turn to the Bill. In debating defence procurement it would be remiss of me not to mention the work of Bernard Gray, who first highlighted the worrying state of UK procurement of military equipment, which consumes approximately 40% of the annual defence budget. In his 2009 report, he described the MOD as having a
	“substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification”.
	That, as successive NAO reports confirmed, is completely unsustainable. I am pleased that the Minister is willing to take up many of the 53 recommendations in Lord Levene’s report on defence reform, and Lord Currie’s report on single-source pricing regulations included
	the requirement to upgrade the yellow book and a recommendation to introduce a single-source regulations office.
	In an intervention, I posed a question on the concerns that I and others have about a possible clash of interests if a GoCo is owned by a foreign operator, an issue that perhaps needs to be explored in Committee. “Off the shelf” has been mentioned as a possible way forward: instead of procuring ourselves, we could simply purchase whatever we need. We saw what happened in Afghanistan when there was a rush to recognise that the Snatch Land Rover was inadequate for our troops there. We suddenly saw the Cougar, Vector, Jackal and Bulldog being purchased off the shelf at huge cost to the taxpayer, until eventually something was found—the Mastiff—that was adequate for the troops. Going shopping and hoping that we hit on the right thing is the not the way to look after our troops on the front line.
	On the balance of regular and reserve forces, as I mentioned, I am a member of the reserves and my last exercise was in Laikipia in Kenya. Halfway through the two-and-a-half week exercise, we came together to discuss the future of the TA and its impact on each of us. Round the table, we had to say what would happen if we were required to break away from our jobs for nine months. Not one person in my group was able to put up their hand and say that their employer would be able to grant them permission to be away from work for that period. I hope we can pursue this issue in Committee. We need to secure employees’ rights to ensure that jobs can be protected, otherwise we will struggle to meet the demands of increasing the size of the reserves.
	Due to the changing nature of warfare, greater emphasis is now being placed on stabilisation operations. That has been illustrated in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where the kinetic phase of war ended quickly but there was no unconditional surrender. I am reminded of the study by General Charles Krulak, who described the concept of the three-block war: soldiers can be fighting one week, doing stabilisation operations the next and engaging in peacekeeping the week after. Reserves often have civilian skills that regulars do not have, which can be used for those peacekeeping and stabilisation roles.
	I am also pleased to see that the relationship between the MOD and the Department for International Development has changed substantially since the Iraq war, when DFID was told that the war was illegal and that it was not allowed to support our military operationally. That was absolutely wrong and I was astonished that Clare Short, in a debate on Iraq, admitted to that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is shaking his head. I will show him in Hansard where she said that she thought the war was illegal and therefore did not want to participate in it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that DFID is relevant to the Bill. I have allowed a little leeway, but I am worried that the time is being used to discuss what has happened previously. I want the debate to continue on where we are now.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall come to a conclusion.
	The Bill will introduce some of the biggest changes since the creation of the TA in 1908 by the Secretary of State for War, Richard Haldane. Today, the TA represents
	more than one quarter of our manpower in the British Army. It was never intended to go overseas, but the first world war changed that, and it is now used in all sorts of circumstances to provide not just military but civilian support. The Bill will bring greater job security to those in uniform, result in more funds for training and provide better equipment for the reservists. It is fair to say that we owe all those who serve a debt of gratitude. It is we politicians who put soldiers, be they regulars or reservists, in harm’s way, and I join others in paying tribute to their and their families’ commitment. I welcome the Government’s reforms since 2010 and I very much welcome the Bill.

Alison Seabeck: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	This has been a wide-ranging, interesting and thoughtful debate that has raised a series of concerns, including the basic one of whether we should go down the GoCo route. Many speakers raised the issue of intellectual property, particularly commercial confidentiality and our relationships with partners and other nations. That was vocalised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has established herself in this place as a bit of a defence expert. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) mentioned the need to ensure that if foreign companies or employees are to be included, the protections around IP and commercial confidentiality are not insubstantial. Despite assurances from a former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is back in his place, that will require further exploration in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury also spoke with great knowledge about the reserve force. I hope he will bring that experience to bear in Committee, because clearly this is something that many hon. Members would like to debate further. There are issues to do with the recruitment of reservists, the policy of cutting the Army, particularly before we have a clear idea of where recruitment to the reserves will come from, and the protections for those signing up.
	I thank the Chair of the Defence Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his contribution, which brought his wisdom and knowledge to bear, and for his many questions. He flagged up the risk Ministers have taken, going, as it were, where no one has gone before, and asked where the risk would sit. Will it sit with the Secretary of State, the GoCo or the taxpayer? He also expressed concerns about time slippages and the lack of a plan B for the reserve force.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) raised several questions about the bigger picture and concerns about the totality of the reforms. He asked if control would be pushed too far away to be meaningful. I think the whole House listened with great sympathy to his comments about the role of the emergency services during the tragic events in Brecon. I am sure the Minister will respond at length on that.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I shall not be drawn into a debate on the nuclear deterrent or whether the Trident review is half-baked.

Kevan Jones: Not even half-baked.

Alison Seabeck: Yes, perhaps not even half-baked.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham made some valuable points about the GoCo, its complexity and the treatment of reservists, and he dallied tantalisingly with European legislation—very dangerous territory in this place.
	We also heard from the gallant tail-end Charlie, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who was frankly lucky not to be shot down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The hon. Gentleman had a very selective memory of the projects he discussed, which distracted from his important opening point about flagging up some of the problems that the Gray review and this Bill seek to correct.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Seabeck: No, I will not; I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. He has had more than his time to make the points he wanted to make. Perhaps he will be on the Committee and we can discuss the issue further.
	In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) talked about the background to the need for change and the importance of not jeopardising the ability of our defence industries to deliver world-class equipment to our front-line forces. We have to say loudly and clearly that, ultimately, we have to get this right if we are serious about giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women the kit and support they need when carrying out their role of protecting our nation. We cannot cut corners; we need to sharpen up our act. The question is therefore this: does this proposal cut the mustard?
	Procurement and the problems associated with it are issues not just for the public sector but for the private sector. As we have seen, getting large projects delivered on time and to budget is a problem not just for the Ministry of Defence but for companies outside. Wembley stadium is an example. It is neither easy nor straightforward to procure for large projects and contracts, which is why we on the Labour Benches have been interested to see the results brought forward by the Chief of Defence Matériel, based on work started under the last Labour Government. The Government will also need to convince Members of this House, the Public Accounts Committee and those outside that they are capable of negotiating and supervising a contract that will be one of the most complex undertaken, given past history—a point touched on by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. I would add that anything that this House decides must not risk destabilising our defence industrial sector, our prime contractors or their supply chain—which is made up of innovative and high-quality small and medium-sized enterprises—in a way that might reduce our ability to deliver in the UK the projects that are vital to this nation’s security.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) talked about the focus on price rather than value. He was concerned about the arbitrary nine-year contracts and the potential instability and uncertainty. He also intimated that there was a need for a wider defence industrial strategy.
	The much respected former Minister the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire waxed nostalgically lyrical about the Bill. He also made the point, in a non-partisan way, that our armed forces are currently well equipped. His observations on the Single Source Regulations Office were acute, and he is correct that the weighty impact assessment is an interesting and valuable document. I am sure that the Minister has noted his remarks about the potential exemptions of foreign companies—as well as the concerns others have raised—and the need for a level playing field. I thank the former Minister for his gracious acknowledgement that whatever the party political differences, we have a shared interest in getting the best possible legislation through this House. Scrutiny and engagement from Her Majesty’s Opposition are part of that process.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for delivering a speech that had great depth and was very probing of all parts of the Bill. He has been assiduous in his preparation, and I hope he will want to serve on the Committee. He also asked legitimate questions about the Department’s finances and the need to avoid a revolving-door culture. Again, that is something on which we might want to seek reassurances in Committee.
	The jury is still very much out on whether the GoCo approach in part 1 of the Bill is a panacea. The points made by many right hon. and hon. Members bear out some of those anxieties. It is vital that the Committee set up to scrutinise the Bill does so with great care and attention to detail, because the devil is always in the detail and this is a very techie—if I may use that term —piece of legislation. It is in no one’s interest—that of the Government, the Opposition, business or the work force—for us to rush the Bill through or simply assume that it must be better than the status quo or DE&S-plus.
	We are still not clear about the view of our key allies and partners, especially the USA, towards these proposals. On the other side of the channel, too, the French are looking at them with interest—and, I suspect, with some concern. Indeed, the impact assessment highlights the fact that one of the key risks associated with the Bill is that our international partners might not fully accept the proposals. The MOD itself has acknowledged that although the Minister has received assurances from the Americans, rumours still abound, so they will need to be put down firmly in Committee with some evidence to back up the assertions made. As we know, the Americans have set up a taskforce to follow the UK’s proposals.
	My hon. Friends and I will want to be convinced—I am sure that the Treasury will need convincing, too—that this is the best option. We will also need convincing—in the light of major concerns about outsourcing, particularly to G4S, and the history of failures that we have seen—that this model is significantly different, that the safeguards in place are robust and that the taxpayer will not be at risk of having to pick up the pieces. We all witnessed armed service personnel stepping up to the plate when G4S failed in its Olympic delivery. Now we have further horror stories to add, so what protections will there be to ensure that it does not happen again?
	Members in the other place will look carefully at the way in which the discussion moves through Committee and, given the wealth of expertise—former permanent secretaries, former Secretaries of State for Defence and
	former heads of the armed services—I have no doubt that the Bill will be given an extremely thorough and testing passage.
	We broadly support the proposals to create an SSRO and, specifically, to replace the “Yellow Book”, designed to bring rigour to the process and to drive cost savings. However, we will want to probe a number of issues, including the level of power that the Secretary of State will hold over this “independent” body. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool voiced concerns about specific clauses and exports in this regard.
	Part 3 is, of course, about our reserve forces, and many Members have spoken to the four relevant clauses. We support an enhanced role for the reserves, which have historically made a significant contribution to the armed forces and UK security. Tragically, some have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young men who lost their lives this week. I would like to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who spoke with such good sense about the need to avoid speculation about what happened in the Brecon Beacons and made thoughtful comments about how to expand our reserve force.
	We are concerned that the reserves are being used to regain capabilities lost through the cuts made to our regular forces, which have gone above and beyond those outlined in the strategic defence and security review. We are concerned that the cart has been put before the horse, and we are concerned, too, about recruitment and retention levels and whether we can reach the level cited by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing to this debate his relatively recent but clearly quite deep expertise on the issue of reservists.
	We have concerns about whether employment patterns will be compatible enough to allow for prolonged deployment, which could become more frequent under these reforms. That is of particular concern to SMEs’ employees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire made clear in his opening speech.
	In winding up, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a thorough and thoughtful debate. I hope some of them will volunteer for the Public Bill Committee. In closing, I say simply that we Opposition Members do understand the rationale for all the changes in Bill, but we will need to be satisfied that there are no unanticipated consequences and that, ultimately, the defence of our realm, the industry and people who support it will be at no additional risk in the long term because of a failure fully and openly to scrutinise the measures that are being brought forward.

Philip Dunne: Let me start by adding my sympathies to those expressed to the families of the two reservists who have died so tragically on the Brecon Beacons during this hot weather. I also join the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) in paying tribute to the volunteer mountain rescue teams who were so helpful in that rescue effort.
	I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and to welcome the tone that she and the shadow Secretary of State, the
	right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), adopted in their speeches. Frankly, that tone has been adopted in virtually every speech. It is interesting that in a debate on a subject that the hon. Lady describes as technical but others might describe as dry, Members on both sides of the House—my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who showed an intimate knowledge of the subject, Members who serve on the Defence Committee, those who serve gallantly in the reserve forces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who undertook the reserves commission work earlier this year—have demonstrated a great deal of expertise. I am sure that many of them will be looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee for a number of weeks in the autumn. The debate has been a good start to the House’s scrutiny of the Bill and I hope that we can look forward to its continuing in the same tone.
	It is clear that the objective of the Bill is shared across the House: we need to provide our armed forces with the support they need and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the reserve forces can be used as part of the integrated Future Force structure, with individual reservists appropriately protected in their role and their employers better rewarded for the contribution they make in supporting the reserve forces. Many points of detail have been raised in the debate and I shall try to cover some of them, but I am sure that those which I fail to cover in my summing up will be picked up in Committee.
	It is encouraging that we have developed a clear sense of consensus across the House and I want to assist in that process in Committee. I shall ensure that draft regulations under part 2 are available when the Committee undertakes its detailed scrutiny, as the single source provisions are some of the most complex. By the time the Bill is scrutinised in the other place, we will have draft regulations available for part 3.
	The measures set out in the Bill represent a real change to how the Ministry of Defence will conduct its business in future. They will allow us fundamentally to reform Defence Equipment and Support and to strengthen the regime governing single-source procurement. That will help to ensure that equipment and capabilities are delivered on time, on budget and to the right specification. The Bill will also enable us to make the best use of and offer the best support to our reserve forces and their employers. The sooner we make these changes, the sooner the benefits to both the armed forces and the taxpayer will become reality.
	The Bill covers three main areas, including two aspects of procurement—DE&S and single source—and the reserves. Let me pick up on some of the comments by reviewing the contributions of hon. Members before I conclude my speech.
	The shadow Secretary of State made a broadly welcome series of comments about the Bill and asked a couple of specific questions that I think I can address now. One was about the FSB survey and whether small employers were critical of our proposals for the reserves. Of course, the survey of FSB members was undertaken in advance of the publication of the White Paper. Since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the
	Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) mentioned, the FSB has endorsed many of the points we have made, which is clearly helpful.
	The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire also asked whether we would introduce employment protections for staff. The staff in the DE&S who will transfer into a GoCo, if we go down that route, will fall under the TUPE regulations, which would all apply. There would be no special risk to those individuals. I shall come on to some of the other employment points shortly.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bill would require additional costs for funding of the reserves. We have set aside £1.8 billion for that purpose, which includes the cost of payments to small and medium-sized enterprises, and there will be no net additional costs. Incidentally, we have defined SMEs as businesses employing a maximum of 250 staff with a turnover of £25 million or less. There are a number of possible definitions.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire posed some specific challenges. He suggested that there had been a slippage in the timetable for the commercial contracting. I can confirm that we expect the invitation to negotiate to be dispatched later this month. We are merely waiting for cross-Government final approvals, which we expect to receive this month. There should therefore be no slippage in our programme, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, we expect conclusions to be reached next year.
	My right hon. Friend asked which domain would go first. In the White Paper, we predicted a phased approach. The identity of the domain to go first will be disclosed in the ITN, which will be made public. He also asked whether we would make public some of the internal documentation that we have used when considering the various options. We intend to publish the business case for the initial gate review which was undertaken earlier in the year.
	My right hon. Friend asked why we needed a statutory procedure for the single-source arrangements. The existing arrangements, which are voluntary, have been in place for 45 years, and do not work. We have concluded that, as Lord Currie recommended, they should be given the force of statute to ensure that the contractors honour the undertakings given under the single-source arrangements. The system will be policed independently by the new single-source regulation office, whose staff will be selected by an appointments committee and whose chairman and chief executive will be recommended by the Secretary of State. It will subsequently appoint its own staff, and will be funded jointly by the MOD and the companies themselves. My right hon. Friend asked whether the single-source arrangements would apply to foreign military sales to the United States. They will not, but we expect the vast majority of single-source contracts to be covered by the new regimes.
	My right hon. Friend and others asked a number of questions about intellectual property protection. The Bill contains a number of safeguards to cover both the intellectual property owned by the companies and the international property rights that protect state secrets and sovereign data. We are confident that, in the event
	of a GoCo operation, sensitive information will not be passed up to parent companies through the corporate veil, regardless of whether those companies are owned by the United Kingdom.
	The Bill controls the handling of confidential information supplied to the MOD by contractors under previous and existing contracts. Those will be passed to the GoCo so that it can carry out its tasks. Schedule 2 makes detailed provisions relating to unauthorised disclosures and unauthorised use of the information by the GoCo. The contract will also include a comprehensive suite of provisions to protect the MOD’s own confidential information, including new confidential and security-classified information, which is generated as a consequence of procurement activities. The provisions specifically include restrictions on the passing of information to parent companies. Other provisions will prohibit the transmission of sensitive information to foreign nationals, or to individuals who do not have the correct security clearances and the need to know.
	The contract will also include requirements for employees to meet nationality restrictions—for example where access to information is restricted to UK eyes only—as they are at present for a number of contracts within DE&S. Only potentially contracting entities will have to satisfy us that they can meet all these requirements and manage these restrictions. It should also be noted that the Official Secrets Act will also apply where appropriate to those staff in the GoCo, who will also be subject to confidentiality clauses in their own contracts as now. Given all these safeguards, I am confident that sensitive information within the GoCo will remain within the GoCo and we will be able to address concerns hon. Members have raised in that regard.
	We have also been asked by a number of Members about the impact of foreign shareholders in a GoCo entity. Clearly the national security interests of the country are the primary responsibility of Government and we will make sure they are protected. If we have concerns in that area, that will be a reason not to select a GoCo route. Given the scale of activity it is likely that the winner of a competition for a GoCo will be a consortium. It is highly likely that members of the consortium will include US companies who have made approaches to us thus far, and we will ensure that a future GoCo is suitably constructed in order to protect UK interests. The contracting entity will be UK-domiciled and UK-registered and we have specified that the overwhelming majority of the contracts shall be performed in the UK, where the company will, of course, pay tax, as the Secretary of State has said.
	That addresses issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). Other Members have raised concerns about the risk of transferring activities of the GoCo into the private sector and whether that would impose undue risk on the contractor. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) asked about this. A GoCo contractor would act as agent of the MOD so the principal risk would reside primarily with the MOD. The risk that would transfer would be risk of non-delivery, which would form part of the performance fee of the contractor operating the GoCo. That element would be at risk, but the principal risk for fulfilling contracts would reside with the Secretary of State.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) raised a number of points in relation to reserves provisions. Many of these matters are not properly part of the Bill. I am sure he will seek to press some of these points in Committee, however, and I will be happy to discuss them with him if and when we get there. On his point about whether there should be officers dedicated to reserves and whether they should hold senior posts, the intention is for the reserves to be more closely integrated within the regular forces, as he identified. We are looking at a whole-force concept and command structure. I will be happy to talk to him further about those points in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) raised some questions about the potential challenges of a nine-year contract for a GoCo and about whether that might be too short. We envisage that there will be pricing points within that period. We wish to maintain a competitive tension during the course of that contract, and at the end of the contract a successful bidder would be in prime position to renew their contract but we would retender it.
	The hon. Gentleman and several other Members raised a number of points regarding MOD policy, such as how we will ensure that exports remain encouraged. That will be a matter for MOD policy-setters. The GoCo entity will implement policy introduced by the MOD. We are in the process of introducing exportability as part of our contracting arrangements for existing contracts, and we envisage that would continue.
	I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire as one of the authors of the measures in this Bill. He gave a very good example in relation to exports of the reciprocity that we are seeing from countries such as South Korea. I will be in Korea next week visiting some of the companies that he knows from the work that he did, and seeking to identify further examples of reciprocity affecting British job prospects. My hon. Friend also asked about the speed of our work. I think that I have already addressed that point in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and East Fife (Thomas Docherty) touched on—

Thomas Docherty: West Fife.

Philip Dunne: West Fife—my apologies. The hon. Gentleman touched on the need to maintain research and development and asked how that would work in the GoCo structure. He mentioned the figure of 1.2%. It is a policy commitment of the MOD to spend that percentage of our budget on science and technology. Our research and development budget is somewhat larger than that, however. In fact, we are spending approximately £1 billion on research and development within our programmes in addition to the science and technology budget. It will be an important part of the policy setting, should a GoCo be the successful outcome, that we should to continue to direct the science and technology spend and the research and development spend, as we would for any normal procurement.
	I need to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I want to thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate for the quality of their contributions and the
	penetrating issues that they have raised. I am looking forward to working with them in Committee. There is clearly widespread support for the need to reform the way in which we procure defence equipment, and a real commitment to ensuring that we get these reforms right.
	The Defence Reform Bill provides the legislation that we need to make far-reaching changes to the way in which we procure our defence capabilities. The changes will not only improve the support we give to our armed forces but make specific improvements for reservists and for their employers, who are an integral partner in enabling the reserve forces to function. The measures will also ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money. We must not miss this opportunity to make essential changes to the way in which we manage and deliver defence. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

defence reform Bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Defence Reform Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24 October 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other Proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Question agreed to.

Defence reform Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Defence Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) any expenditure of the Secretary of State required by the Act to be paid out of money provided by Parliament;
	(2) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union (Referendum) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	It is standard Government procedure to introduce a money resolution for any private Member’s Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading to enable the Bill to be fully debated in Committee. It is inevitable that costs would be incurred in holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, and a money resolution is required to enable those costs to be paid.
	Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the chair of the Electoral Commission is the chief counting officer, responsible for the conduct of referendums. So far, no detailed estimate has been made of the cost of this national referendum. We do, however, have the precedent of the referendum on the parliamentary voting system in May 2011. We would expect the cost of running a UK-wide referendum to be similar to the cost of that referendum on the alternative vote system, which was just over £75.3 million. Of course, that would depend in part on whether a referendum on EU membership were held alongside local or other elections, as the alternative vote referendum was. I commend the motion to the House.

Emma Reynolds: As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading, any decisions about the European Union and about an in/out referendum should be taken in the national interest, and the Opposition do not believe that such a referendum in 2017, as proposed in the Bill, is in the national interest. The Prime Minister, in January, chose an arbitrary date in order to keep his Back Benchers on side. The Bill also sets out the 2017 date, which does not reflect any realistic timetable of treaty change, given that the French and Dutch Governments, and many others, including even the German Government, have now gone cool on the idea. The Bill sets an arbitrary date that does not represent a clear negotiating strategy, and I fear it has been motivated by a desire to paper over the deep divisions in the Conservative party on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. It seems that the Bill has been introduced because Conservative Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), simply do not trust their own party leader and Prime Minister to deliver on his January speech.
	Although the Opposition will not oppose the money resolution attached to the Bill, the Government still need to answer serious and significant questions about the expenditure implications of the Bill. The shadow Europe Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Minister for Europe—

Chris Bryant: Soon to be shadow.

Emma Reynolds: Soon to be shadow, I hope.
	The Minister for Europe said that he could not give a number for, or approximate cost of, the expenditure needed for a referendum. He has, however, some questions to answer on whether particular groups will be included in this specific referendum. Will the good people of Gibraltar, who have a right to vote in European parliamentary elections, be included in this franchise? Will British people living abroad have the right to vote? Will 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in this referendum, as they will have in next year’s Scottish referendum? Finally, and importantly, will British service personnel serving abroad have the right to vote in the referendum foreseen by this Bill? I fear that the Government have not answered any of those questions today.

James Wharton: I shall be brief, Mr Speaker. First, I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Committee of Selection, which has pulled together the Committee that will now consider this Bill as it goes forward, following this evening’s resolution. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the House and the Government for following the convention that a private Member’s Bill that secures its Second Reading will secure its money resolution and be able to be taken forward.
	I very much look forward to going through many of these issues in detail with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). I hope that we can do that in the spirit of finding mutual ground, co-operation and agreement on an extremely important issue, rather than trying to make it a difficult and arduous process for all involved. I am sure that that will be the case. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the support I believe they will give this resolution, and I look forward, in due course, to bringing the Bill back on Report.

Mike Gapes: I wish to speak on the money resolution. This is not the speech that I was not called to give in the debate on 5 July, nor is it the single transferable speech I would have given, had I been chosen to be a member of the Committee, on various amendments that I have tabled. I cannot understand why I was not chosen, given that I am so keen to debate these issues. Perhaps it is because there is a view out there—I had an e-mail this afternoon claiming this—that I am trying to wreck the Bill. I am not trying to do that, and I wish to focus these remarks on some of its expenditure implications.
	The Minister talked about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, the Bill makes no reference to that Act, so we must consider the nature of the question that would be put in a referendum. The original draft Bill, which was published by the Conservative party on 14 May, proposed the question:
	“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?”
	However, the European Union (Referendum) Bill sets out a different question:
	“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
	The Daily Mail suggested that Eurosceptic Conservative Members were unhappy about the original wording and that it had been changed because
	“anti-Brussels MPs privately protested that the word ‘remain’ would prompt voters to stay in”.
	As the Bill proceeds through Committee, I hope that that change will be explored further.
	My hon. Friend the shadow Minister referred to the timing of the proposed referendum. The date that is chosen will have implications for the referendum. As the Minister said, if a referendum were held on the same day as local or European Parliament elections, the costs could be minimised and turnout would probably be significantly higher. Perhaps we should consider whether we should have a threshold for turnout, as was the case for the Scottish referendum in the 1970s, but that is not a matter for today.
	If we were to hold the referendum on the same day as next year’s European Parliament elections—22 May 2014—expenditure on the referendum and its associated literature would be greatly reduced. Those arguing for leaving the European Union could then presumably vote for the UK Independence party, or perhaps the Conservatives, while voting to leave in the referendum. The cost of the literature put out by the respective parties would then be considerably smaller, although I am not entirely sure what the Conservative party’s literature would say about such a referendum.
	The referendum could be held on the same day as the next general election, which will take place on the first Thursday in May 2015. Such an approach would similarly minimise the cost, as well as giving at least one of the coalition parties, or perhaps both, more time to clarify their attitude to the in-or-out question on the European Union.
	There are implications of holding the referendum after the 2015 general election, given the rule that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. We are presumably being asked to vote for the money resolution on the basis that a commitment is being made for the future, but it might not be carried through if a different Government are elected at the next general election and they want to take a different approach.
	If we are to hold the referendum by 31 December 2017, as is proposed, there might be implications for the British presidency of the European Union, which is due to begin on 1 July 2017. We could hold the referendum on the same day that the United Kingdom takes over the presidency, which might minimise costs because the literature published about the programme for the British presidency could refer to the referendum. If we held the referendum later that year—during the British presidency —it would help to publicise the various events that would be held to celebrate Britain’s contribution to the European Union, so I would look forward to that. The Bill does not deal with those options, but I hope that they will be explored in Committee.
	We could minimise costs, and give the Conservative part of the Government more time to renegotiate the special arrangements that they wish to put in place, by holding a referendum on the same day as the 2020 general election. Based on the same arguments as I used before about the 2015 election, that too would be a way to minimise the cost that would be incurred.
	The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reduce the cost of politics. It seems a strange way to go about reducing the cost of politics to bring in a referendum which, as the Minister said, will cost millions of pounds, and at the same time try to reduce the number of Members of the House of Commons, but increase the number of Members in the other place.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No.9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Greg Clark relating to the European Union (Referendum) Bill: Money Resolution.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.
	Debate resumed.
	Main Question again proposed.

Mike Gapes: I do not wish to detain the House too long because I wish to celebrate later the passing of the equal marriage Bill. I hope that along with all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and many on the Government Benches—or most of those on the Opposition Benches and some on the Government Benches—we will be able to celebrate the equal marriage Bill. Therefore it is not my intention to divide the House this evening.

Gerald Howarth: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is not an equal marriage Bill because it does not provide for non-consummation or adultery. Therefore it cannot be described as equal marriage.

Mike Gapes: I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you would not wish me to get into the next debate so I shall not be tempted to go down that route. [Interruption.] But we could, of course, discuss wider issues—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is shouting at me from a sedentary position, but I will not be tempted. I remember our exchanges over the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s and I would much rather debate the referendum with him now.
	These are important issues. The Bill needs proper scrutiny. It therefore needs to be considered carefully in Committee, and when it comes out of Committee—whenever that is—in several months, it will need to be properly considered in the House on Report and before it gets, or if it gets, a Third Reading. There are too many important questions to be considered for it to be assumed that the Bill should be pushed through without proper scrutiny and debate. The future of our country in Europe is at stake. Therefore the House and the country expect nothing less than the proper parliamentary scrutiny appropriate for a parliamentary democracy, not a democracy that is undermined by what a former Labour Prime Minister called a device of demagogues and dictators, which was quoted favourably by Margaret Thatcher when she was Leader of the Opposition in the debate in 1975. In that debate she said, and I conclude on this—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members were frustrated when they were unable to get their Margaret Thatcher day. At least I will quote Margaret Thatcher—

Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: Yes, I will, before I quote her.

Tim Loughton: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He might like to take the opportunity, before he ends, to mention the money resolution which is supposed to be the subject of this debate. So far he has not done so.

Mr Speaker: It is not necessary to repeat the refrain “money resolution” so long as the content of the remarks of an hon. Member relates clearly to the purpose of the resolution. I have been attending closely to the hon. Gentleman’s expatiations and so far he has met the criterion. I do not want him to depart from the path of virtue as he nears his end.

Mike Gapes: I would never intend to depart from the path of virtue, Mr Speaker.
	Mrs Thatcher said that the 1975 referendum had been introduced as
	“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]
	Those are the words she used to describe the policy put forward by the then Labour Government, and I believe that they are completely appropriate to describe the policy now being put forward by the split part of this split Government—the Conservative part of the coalition.

Martin Horwood: I am in broad sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but since he is now repeating things I said on Second Reading, I wonder, given the historic vote on equal marriage that we are waiting to cast, whether it would not be better to stop banging on about Europe just for a bit.

Mike Gapes: Yes, of course. Had I not taken the previous two interventions, I would have finished by now. I was just about the give the House the benefits of Margaret Thatcher’s words of wisdom in 1975, but I was faced with two interventions, and now I have taken three. I am happy to conclude my remarks and hope to return to these issues later in the year if the Bill reaches consideration on Report.

Kevan Jones: I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I accept that there is an important piece of legislation to consider after this, but it is important to highlight the fact that the British taxpayer will be faced with a bill of £75 million, as the Minister said, for what is basically an internal debate within the Conservative party. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) earlier, because I would like to know what he would do if he were given £75 million to spend in his constituency. I am sure that there are many projects there that have been cut by the Government and that could more justifiably be argued for than the proposed referendum.
	The Minister said that the referendum would cost £75 million, provided that the Bill was used in relation to the voting system, but it could cost a lot more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has already demonstrated. If we include Gibraltar, and
	I can see no reason why we should not—I do not know what the hon. Member for Stockton South has against it—because it votes in European referendums, that would add to the cost. We also should not forget the overseas territories, which have the access rights that others have in the EU. Why should they not be consulted on their future status? I argue that they should, but again that would add to the costs.
	Another debate, which I know is taking place in Scotland, is whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. If they are, that would add more costs. Another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred to is the fact that in 1975 the Government provided money to the yes and no campaigns. Is it proposed that Government money will be given to the yes and no campaigns for this referendum? If it is, that will mean the cost will be more than £75 million. We can clearly see that, in addition to his point about whether the referendum will be on the same day as other elections, that will lead to a great deal more than £75 million.
	The important point for the hon. Member for Stockton South is this: can he really say to his constituents—I know Stockton South very well, as he knows—that in excess of £100 million of Government money should be spent on this referendum, and all to solve an internal debate in the Tory party, rather than our relationship with Europe? Can he or any other Member who supports the referendum really justify spending more than £100 million on it? I know what I would do with the money in my constituency: I would replace the money that has been taken out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Once we explain to people that the Bill will use well in excess of £100 million, I am sure that most of them would agree that it could be spent a hell of a lot better.

Emma Reynolds: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said the day before his name was drawn at the top of the ballot that there were issues much more pressing than an EU referendum, such as the economy and jobs, that he suddenly changed his mind 24 hours later?

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Stockton South has a small majority, so he might be promoting this Bill to endear himself to the selection panels of future safe Tory seats, rather than to the electors of Stockton South who, as my hon. Friend is right to say, would have many more priorities for spending in excess of £100 million.
	Will a referendum solve the problem? No, it will not and some hon. Members try to paper over the real issues that will face the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has argued in favour of membership of the EU, but the big question for him is which way he will vote—yes or no. Will he support state funding for this referendum? We will then see cracks opening up in the Conservative party between those who are pragmatists in Europe and those who represent the more extreme section of his party. That is the question that will face the Prime Minister, and it will not change between now and 2017.
	A lot of questions will obviously—and rightly—be explored in Committee, but as the Minister for Europe said, the Bill has passed Second Reading and private
	Member’s Bill money resolutions are usually supported. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to such a process, but I conclude with a question. The cost will be in excess of £100 million. I know that many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will ask how we could spend £100 million in a better way. There are many ways better than wasting it on this Bill which, as I have said, is about the internal politics of the Conservative party, rather than what is in Britain’s best interest.
	Question put and agreed to.

Marriage (Same sex couples) bill: (programme) (no. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 5 February 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme)) and 20 May 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Robert Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Mr Speaker: I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 54 and 55. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc

Maria Miller: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2, 3 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 41 to 44, and 51 to 55.

Maria Miller: The title of this Bill might be “Marriage”, but its fabric is about freedom and respect: freedom to marry regardless of sexuality or gender, but also freedom to believe that marriage should be of one man with one woman and not be marginalised. It provides clear affirmation that as a nation, respect for each and every person is paramount, regardless of age, religion, gender, ethnicity or sexuality.
	Throughout this Bill we have listened closely to the issues raised with us, and I particularly thank the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for the impressive way that they handled this Bill in Committee. The issues raised in Committee have been looked at thoroughly, and these further amendments will improve the Bill and strengthen its effectiveness. I also thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for their constructive and considerate contributions.
	Lords amendments 1 and 2 clarify the meaning of “compelled” in clause 2, which provides important protections to ensure that religious organisations and their representatives cannot be compelled to opt in to, or conduct marriages between same-sex couples.

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment to make a little more progress, then of course I will give way.
	The amendments were tabled in response to questions asked in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and those in the other place who were concerned that the protection from compulsion set out in clause 2 might be too narrow because the meaning of “compulsion” was not clear. We concluded
	that we could clarify the meaning of the word “compelled” in this context and make sure that in doing so we were not doing harm elsewhere. The sensible clarification that “compelled” means “compelled by any means” put the question beyond doubt, and it was warmly welcomed in the other place.

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps she might add to her list of tributes my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) so that it does not just include Opposition Members who support her Bill but colleagues who have done considerable work in scrutinising it.

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for making sure that we pay tribute to those on both sides of the debate, whether it be my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). They have all played their part in making sure that we will have a strong piece of legislation that protects people who have deeply held religious beliefs and those who believe that it is absolutely right and fair that marriage should be open to same-sex couples.
	The guiding principle of this Bill, from the start, has been the protection and promotion of religious freedoms, so we have made a number of other amendments to ensure that the religious protections that it contains are as strong, clear and effective as they can be. They include amendment 3 on the Jewish governing authorities, amendments 38, 39, 40, 48, 49 and 52 on void marriages, and amendment 51 on a change of personnel within a governing authority.
	Some people are concerned about the effect of the Bill on the broader issue of freedom to express the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman—in particular, in relation to employment and schools. We want to ensure that that freedom of expression is protected, as, I am sure, would my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). That has guided our thinking throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened to these arguments and acted. Our amendment to the Public Order Act 1986, amendment 53, puts it beyond doubt that the discussion or criticism of marriage regarding the sex of the parties to it shall not be taken, of itself, to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman is, of course, mainstream, legitimate and lawful, and it is explicitly recognised as such by the religious protections contained in the Bill. Whatever one’s view about the marriage of same-sex couples, it is legitimate and the Government will protect the right to express it. I hope that that provides the reassurance that several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been looking for.
	Extending marriage to same-sex couples changes nothing in respect of freedom of speech. That is why, in relation to other questions about the operation of the Equality Act 2010, particularly on the position of employees and teachers, we are clear that further changes to the law are
	not necessary and could indeed be harmful in casting doubt where none currently exists. For this reason, we believe that the best way to deliver clarity is through guidance to deal with the particular concerns that have been expressed, not by making specific provision in the law. We will therefore work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that guidance will be available on how the Equality Act should be interpreted in the light of this Bill.
	I am aware that there is considerable anxiety on the issue of teachers. I would like further to reassure hon. Members that, in the unlikely event that unforeseen consequences materialised, the Bill already contains ample powers to take action, particularly in paragraph 27 of schedule 4. These powers make it possible to disapply or modify, should circumstances require it, the default approach provided in clause 11 and schedule 3 whereby marriage has the same effect in law for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples.

Stewart Jackson: On the Equality Act, will my right hon. Friend explain why it was not considered appropriate to make marriage between a man and a woman a protected characteristic?

Maria Miller: I know that my hon. Friend raises that point for legitimate reasons: he wants to make sure that the House has clarification, and I respect that. I refer him back to the lengthy debate on this issue in Committee, where it was decided that further reassurance or clarification was not required and that, to avoid any scintilla of doubt, an amendment should be made to the Public Order Act to ensure that anyone who states that marriage is only between one man and one woman should not be taken as having criminal intent. We will achieve that through the Public Order Act, so we do not need to do so through the Equality Act.

Stephen Doughty: I concur with the Minister on the Equality Act. Indeed, I referred to it a number of times in Committee and have done so in debates in the House. Is it not the case that the Equality Act balances protected characteristics, such as those of religious belief and sexuality?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman, who sat on the Committee, makes a strong point, but we have to recognise that people require reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has sought that reassurance and I hope he will join me in supporting the amendment to the Public Order Act so that there is absolute clarity for those who may remain concerned.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her detailed clarification on the issues of compulsion on the grounds of religion and with regard to teachers in particular, because they have formed the basis of most of the letters of objection that I have received from constituents. Now that those points have been clarified, people’s fears can be put to rest.

Edward Leigh: No, they can’t.

Angela Watkinson: We can now allow the Bill to progress and legislate on equal rights for gay people.

Maria Miller: As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful comment. I hope that she is right that this lays to rest those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said from a sedentary position that that was not the case, so perhaps I could give him an example of how we could use these provisions. Should problems arise in faith schools as a result of this Bill’s effect on section 304 of the Education Act 1996 or the guidance made under it, these provisions could be used to resolve them. I hope that that provides the further reassurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is looking.

David Burrowes: I appreciate the assurances being given by my right hon. Friend. She promised that the Government would consider whether any amendments or guidance were needed, particularly in relation to education. I appreciate that the other place has considered the issue, but am I right to understand that the Minister is now giving an undertaking that if there are any practical concerns on the ground about teachers promoting or endorsing same-sex marriage, she will consider the evidence and would then be willing to use her order-making powers under clause 11 to ensure proper clarity?

Maria Miller: I do not think that my hon. Friend heard me right. I said that there are provisions in the Bill and the decision about whether they should be used will be made as and when any problems arise. My hon. Friend is right that any issues that arise can be dealt with under clause 11 and schedule 3 in particular. I hope that that provides him and other hon. Members with the sort of reassurance for which they are looking. I think that many of us, if not everyone, in this House understand the critical role that faith schools play in all our communities and I am sure that we all want to do everything we can to ensure that there is clarity and certainty so that they can continue to teach according to their faiths and beliefs.
	I think that this is an appropriate point to address amendments (a) and (b) that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has tabled to Lords amendment—

Mr Speaker: I fear not, notwithstanding the good intentions of the Minister, on the grounds that those amendments are included in the second group. The Minister is ahead of herself. She should not be condemned for that, but I know that she would not wish to be disorderly. She may return to her previous position or stick to her last, if I may put it that way.

Maria Miller: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. As always, you are extremely helpful. I would never want to be ahead of myself, particularly not when discussing this Bill.
	The powers in paragraph 27 of schedule 4 are very specific. They are safeguarding powers to prevent the Bill from having a greater effect than is intended. I hope that hon. Members are able to look at that—

Mr Speaker: I do not wish to be unhelpful to the Minister, rather the contrary, but my strong impression, and I have guidance to confirm it, is that, having chosen the material that is the subject of the grouping, she is
	moving beyond that grouping and encroaching on other territory, which, in a parliamentary sense—the only sense in which I would ever accuse the right hon. Lady of this—is disorderly. I would not want her to be guilty of disorderly conduct, but in a parliamentary sense she is. She has strayed into it and she needs to get back to the group to which she was talking. If she has completed her consideration of the group, there is no obligation on her to continue her speech.

Maria Miller: Thank you for bringing me into order, Mr Speaker. I would like to move on to Lords amendments 41 to 44, because the Bill also introduces—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Members who are chuntering from a sedentary position with evident disapproval should know that the Minister is absolutely in order. Amendments 41 to 44 are within the group and it is perfectly proper for the Minister to treat of them. I am not sure whether the heckling was calculated or ironic, but it was wrong.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would never seek to use irony against you, so do not worry.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure whether I am supposed to be comforted by that observation, but it is on the record.

Maria Miller: I think that we should turn the House’s attention to amendments 41 to 44 before we become more sidetracked.
	The Bill introduces an important advance for trans people who wish for their marriages to continue after seeking gender recognition. We have made a number of amendments to achieve that. First, Lords amendments 41 and 44 introduce a fast-track procedure for those who transitioned a long time ago, but who have not sought legal gender change, so that they can remain in their marriage. Secondly, Lords amendments 42 and 43 make it clear that the consent of a trans person’s spouse is simply consent to staying married after the trans person’s gender recognition; it is not consent to their gender recognition and is therefore not a veto to it.
	There are two further issues on which the Government have recognised the strength of feeling here and in the other place, and on which we have undertaken to establish a proper evidence base. Lords amendments 10, 15, 26 and 54 provide for a statutory consultation on whether marriage law in England and Wales should be changed to enable belief organisations to conduct legally valid marriages. That was not part of the original policy intent of the Bill and careful consideration is required before any legislative action can be taken, including a full public consultation. It is entirely sensible that that should now be done.
	Those amendments are the fruits of a great cross-party effort to achieve an agreed position and to provide a sensible and considered way forward. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble Friend, Baroness Stowell and the noble Lord Wallace of Tankerness for the careful and considered way in which they presented
	the Bill in the other place. By working with Opposition Front Benchers, we have achieved considerable progress in this area.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend mentions Baroness Stowell, who said in another place that
	“marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 379.]
	I find it absolutely astonishing and unbelievable that a Conservative Government Minister should be uttering that. Does my right hon. Friend agree? Is that the Government’s view of marriage?

Maria Miller: My view of marriage is clearly that fidelity can be extremely important. This is something on which my hon. Friend and I would very much agree. It can be a commitment between two individuals on, one would hope, a lifelong basis. I think he and I would share the importance of fidelity in that relationship.
	Another area of the Bill that has been considered in great detail is that of pensions. Amendment 11, with amendments 16, 27, 34 and 55, deals with survivor benefits under occupational pension schemes. During debate in this House and in the other place important questions were raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), about the differences between opposite sex married couples and same-sex married couples with regard to these benefits. The House is fully aware that historically there are many pre-existing discrepancies within the pensions system. To equalise these benefits would come with a considerable price tag. Amendment 11 represents a sensible way forward and has cross-party acceptance. It commits the Government to arranging a review of differences and survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes, and includes an order-making power should one be needed.
	Amendments 4 to 8, 12 to 14, 17 to 21, 23—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has strayed again into the second group. I think that she has in this regard been ill-served by people whose grasp of parliamentary procedure could perhaps do with a little brushing up.

Chris Bryant: They are very good officials normally.

Mr Speaker: I note the sedentary observation from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The Minister should return to the first group, with which she was dealing. If she has dealt with that group to her satisfaction, we can always await with interest and anticipation her remarks on the second group, but only when we reach it.

Yvette Cooper: I am pleased to welcome the Bill back to the House, and not only because the Chamber is the only cool place in the building and it is some relief to be in here.
	This evening, we will see the Bill through its final stages and have the chance to wish it well on its way to Royal Assent. We have the chance to consider the Bill as it is returned to us from the Lords, with the amendments they have tabled. As a result of the Bill, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married, just as their parents did and just as their friends and relatives do. Couples who love each other are getting engaged already: they are preparing to tie the knot and getting ready for a great party. I have a sneaking suspicion that even some of the opponents of the Bill—certainly many of its supporters—are rather envious of those who are on the Elton John and David Furnish guest list. That will certainly be a proper party.
	It is striking how much warmth and celebration the Bill has received. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the House of Lords for its strong cross-party support for the Bill. In particular, I thank Baroness Thornton and Baroness Royall, who led the Labour Front-Bench team in the Lords, but also Baroness Stowell who led for the Government. I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in thanking Lord Alli, who did such a fantastic job building support throughout the other place over many months.
	I thank the Prime Minister for sticking with the Bill when those around him called for a halt, and I thank the Secretary of State and her Ministers, who have worked extremely hard; I know how much of their time this has taken up in the Department and Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who worked so hard from the Labour Front Bench, and all my hon. Friends who came to support the Bill. I am very glad that Labour votes got the Bill through its Second and Third Readings in the House and that we will support it again tonight.
	I also thank hon. Members from all parties who voted for the Bill despite personal pressures, perhaps from their faith group, the Government Benches or local political parties. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

David Burrowes: The right hon. Lady talks about the time the other place gave to scrutinising the Bill, which I respect, but can she point to any non-Government amendments that made it through that scrutiny process? Does she not give some credence to the concerns of the noble Lord Framlingham, who said:
	“This House prides itself on being a revising Chamber. On this Bill it has been a bulldozer. We are being used to bulldoze through an ill thought through Bill”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 543.]

Yvette Cooper: I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Lords have debated the Bill extensively and have given it strong support. It is true that many of the amendments have Government support, but that reflects the detailed discussions that have taken place between Ministers, Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers. For example, the Government now support the amendments on humanism and so on, which they did not when we debated these issues before. As a result of those debates and our efforts to compromise and ensure that the Bill made progress, we reached agreement even among those who disagreed on certain issues. We did that to support the Bill and to promote the strong values that we celebrate in marriage.

Diane Abbott: On the question of celebration, can we spare a thought for those persons, including supporters of Stonewall, who rallied across the road while the Bill was in the other place, celebrating with rainbow flags, costumes and free ice cream from a well-known ice cream maker—

Chris Bryant: And carnations.

Diane Abbott: Yes, and carnations. At the end of the day, this is a celebratory occasion and debate.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. While we have been debating the Bill, we have been not only lobbied, but serenaded, most fabulously by the London Gay Men’s Chorus, who sang a rousing version of “Get me to the Church on Time”, which we all joined in with, as the Bill got its Second Reading in the House of Lords. That was a loud and proud, joyous celebration of love, laughter and marriage. That is the spirit in which we should see the Bill through its final stages this evening. As a result of this vote, same-sex couples will have the same recognition and respect from the state, and the same recognition under the law, for their relationship and their love. Because marriage is about the ups and downs, the long-term commitment through thick and thin, so this is also about the right to grow old and grumpy together under the banner of marriage. This is indeed time to celebrate, not discriminate.

John Robertson: As someone who celebrates his 40th wedding anniversary next month and has had many ups and downs, I ask my right hon. Friend: is the Bill not about having a caring relationship between two people who love each other, making that commitment for life and making it all worth while? Why should anyone be excluded from that?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right, although I would never accuse him, whom I know so well, of growing old and grumpy with anybody, even after 40 years of marriage. We congratulate him as he celebrates his 40th anniversary.
	This is about people celebrating their love for each other regardless of gender or sexuality. That is why the Bill is so important, after we have had changes in the law on the age of consent, membership of the armed forces, discrimination and adoption. In the words of Stonewall, this Bill is the final piece in the jigsaw to get equality under the law, and it is one we should welcome and celebrate.

Fiona O'Donnell: Would my right hon. Friend add to that list the repeal of section 28? Despite all the concerns, it has done no harm, just as this Bill will do no harm.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is perhaps understandable, but the remarks on both sides are in danger of causing this debate to become a kind of Third Reading debate, which it must not become. There are Lords amendments before us, and it is on those that Members’ remarks must be focused.

Yvette Cooper: Indeed, Mr Speaker.

Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that by accepting this group of Lords amendments, we will be completing a journey that started, as she rightly said, with the Adoption and Children Act 2002? I and other hon. Members moved amendments to that legislation to give same-sex couples the right to apply to adopt. They were opposed by Conservative Front Benchers, which resulted in your resignation from that Front Bench, Mr Speaker, and started you on a journey that resulted in your being in the Chair this evening.

Yvette Cooper: In the spirit of your ruling, Mr Speaker, let me say that the reason the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) are relevant—not only to the Lords amendments we are considering, but to the amendments that many people have tried to make, and certainly from the Back Benches—is that there has been a debate about what happens in schools and teaching. We know that the removal of section 28 has been a good thing, which is an example of why people are wrong to be concerned about the impact on teaching. As the Secretary of State said, there are many safeguards in law to protect freedom of religion and belief in these matters, but also to ensure that we do not discriminate. That is what the amendments and this Bill are all about.
	I want to refer to some of the most significant amendments passed in the other place, one of which deals with humanism. We made it clear in the House—as have many others—that we support the principle of allowing humanist weddings in England and Wales. We know that 2,500 non-religious couples in Scotland every year already enjoy the meaning and sentiment that having a humanist ceremony can bring to their special day. Humanist weddings are now the third most popular choice of ceremony in Scotland. I gather that humanist funerals are also quite popular in both England and Wales, as well as in Scotland. When it comes to weddings, we think that couples in England and Wales should be able to enjoy the same choices in how they celebrate as they do in their final rites.

Fiona O'Donnell: My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. As we have humanist naming ceremonies —she also referred to humanist funerals—does she not think it right that the whole journey of an individual and their family should have that seamless thread running through it?

Yvette Cooper: That is right. People should be able to have that choice. This is about what are the most important moments in people’s and family’s lives—births and weddings, as well as death and saying goodbye to a loved one. People should be able to choose how those crucial events in their lives are celebrated. That is why we think it right for people to be able to enjoy humanist celebrations as well.

Stephen Doughty: I totally concur with the points my right hon. Friend is making about humanist marriage, and I am glad the Government came back with amendments on this issue. Does she agree that there are important protections in the amendments made in the other place to prevent the possibility of crazy things such as Jedi weddings? This is about humanist weddings,
	which are very specific. It is not about commercial weddings, Jedi weddings or any of the other scaremongering that we have heard.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We debated humanism when the Bill was in this place and in Committee, and the Government originally stated that they would not support amendments that would deliver humanist wedding ceremonies in this Bill, citing concern about delaying its passage. We did not, of course, want to delay the Bill’s passage or to create complexities that might have caused unintended problems elsewhere. That is why we did not, in the end, press the matter to a final vote in the Commons, but allowed the proposals to be further considered in the Lords so that Ministers could discuss them further.
	The British Humanist Association has certainly proved extremely willing to work with the Government, the Opposition Front-Bench team, Back Benchers and Cross Benchers to find solutions to the various obstacles encountered during the Bill’s passage. I am pleased that, as a result of those discussions, a compromise position was reached so that we can now have a proper review of the legislation, fully considering the implications of legalising humanist wedding ceremonies in England and Wales and having the power to make changes in future. I hope that, one day soon, we will be able to celebrate humanist weddings as well as same-sex weddings.

Andrew Turner: Could the right hon. Lady assist me by explaining the difference, if there is one, between marriage and weddings? She seems to be using the latter form rather than the former.

Yvette Cooper: Weddings are fabulous celebrations, and I really love going to them, but I do not love going to marriages. Marriage is something that people commit to for the whole of their lives—it has ups and downs; pain as well as pleasure and beauty—so it is obviously a very different thing from the one-day fabulous celebration that we all want to enjoy at weddings. However, I think we have a great opportunity to celebrate both weddings and marriages—that is what the Bill is about—and that long-term loving commitment that two people want to make to each other: to put up with each other when things get tough, to look after each other through illness or old age. Being able to make that commitment is hugely important. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) clearly seems to find this something he does not want to celebrate. I suspect he would celebrate such loving commitment in an opposite-sex marriage, so why will he not do so in a same-sex marriage as well? I urge him to do so, to give us a smile and just enjoy the fact that other people are going to get married as a result of this legislation.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has been celebrating his own marriage for 29 years.

Barbara Keeley: Talking of celebrations, Mr Speaker, I want to celebrate the fact that Labour’s shadow equality team has supported all the way through this amendment on the notion of humanist weddings. I am very pleased to see Lords amendment 10 tabled. Some years ago, I attended a humanist funeral for someone in my constituency, and it is one of the most moving occasions I have ever attended. It attested to the value of such a ceremony for somebody with humanist beliefs. I look forward, as I am sure other Members do, to a time after the consultation and review when we will be able to attend humanist marriages. I particularly wanted to celebrate the fact that the Opposition have supported this all the way along.

Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my noble Friend Baroness Thornton have had many meetings with the British Humanist Association and have worked with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has been a keen supporter of enabling humanist weddings.
	I turn to pension survivor benefits, on which a major amendment was passed in the other place. We want to ensure that through this Bill, we make some progress towards addressing the remaining pensions inequalities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Measures have already been taken to equalise survivor benefit entitlements for civil partners with those of widowers under public sector and contracted-out schemes, and I welcome that. However, the estimates of the cost of equalising the remaining differences in survivor benefits have so far been very wide ranging. Everyone has accepted that the equalisation of pensions would involve some small and direct cost to private pension schemes, and the Government have asserted at different stages that equalising the benefits for civil partners and married couples of the same sex could result in a wide range of costs, but we have never seen any breakdown of those costs or of how they are calculated.

Mike Freer: Would the right hon. Lady be surprised to hear that neither the House of Commons Library nor the National Association of Pension Funds can provide a list of contracted-in schemes, which means that we cannot identify how the figure was calculated?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We also tried to find out through the House of Commons Library and others how some of the costings produced by the Government could be calculated. Everybody wants to ensure that the approach to the legislation and to pensions is fiscally responsible, and we need to understand what the costs might be, so it has been very frustrating that we have not had a detailed breakdown that justifies the claims of large costs. That makes it implausible to many experts that such costs would accrue. Many experts believe that the costs would not be those that Ministers have suggested would be incurred at different stages. That is why it is right to make this progress in the legislation.

Julian Huppert: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and for her comments earlier about humanist weddings, which we will come back to later. The anomaly with pensions started with
	the civil partnerships legislation and was about to be continued, but is she really saying that equality should depend on price? Surely we want people to be equal regardless of their sexuality, and cost should not stop us ensuring that.

Yvette Cooper: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is right to get an assessment of what the costs should be before making any decision. It is right to get the information, but unfortunately it has not been forthcoming. Although we have pressed the issue in the Commons and in meetings with Ministers, including the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—a member of the same party as the hon. Gentleman who will, I hope, encourage him to provide the detailed evidence we need—it looks to many experts as though the proposal is affordable, doable and will not incur the considerable costs that the Government have suggested. The amendment provides a sensible compromise that will not delay the progress of the Bill while allowing us to make some progress on pensions.

Mike Freer: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that whatever the cost, when contribution rates are the same, whether someone is straight or gay, it is not equitable that the pension benefits are different? If people pay the same, they should get the same.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point about the principle of equality that we should be pursuing. That is why we wanted to see progress made on the legislation. We supported the compromise position proposed by the Government so that we did not delay the Bill but could make progress towards ensuring that the costings were set out and we would have the power to make the changes and establish the equality we all want. That is the right approach.

Kevin Brennan: Will proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 11, which gives the Secretary of State power to make an order in relation to pension benefits, mean that the order will come back to the House in any way, shape or form before it is made? Or are we allowing the Secretary of State the powers to make such an order without further parliamentary scrutiny?

Yvette Cooper: I hope that the Government will be able to make rapid progress and to introduce orders. It is right that they should look into the legal details and consequences of doing so, but I hope that we will be able to see that progress and to scrutinise such orders in this place.
	Let me refer briefly to the amendments that relate to a group of people affected by the Bill who are sometimes overlooked in these debates and who still face enormous prejudice—that is, men and women who are transgender. Under the Bill, couples who want to remain married when one partner changes gender will for the first time be able to do so. I am pleased that the Government have made that concession and have allowed a fast-track procedure for gender recognition certificates to take place in particular circumstances, and I am pleased that the issue was debated in such detail in the House of Lords.

Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the amendments will be welcomed by members of the transgender community, who often feel excluded or, as it were, hyper-marginalised by some of our debates, and that the House of Lords did well to bring forward these amendments?

Yvette Cooper: I do. The issue was debated in Committee, but, given the huge effect that the present situation has on some people’s lives, it tends not to be considered much in comparison with the consideration that is given to other issues. The House of Lords was able to consider it at length, and I believe that we should support its amendments. I know that some Members of both Houses wanted more changes to be made to the Bill, or indeed opposed it in the first place.

Tim Loughton: May I ask the right hon. Lady a question that I should have asked her earlier? The “humanist” amendment, which she supports, prescribes a clear timetable: a review must be
	“produced and published before 1 January 2015.”
	Why did she not consider it necessary to demand a timetable for the review of civil partnerships, which she supported during an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage? That provision is open-ended.

Yvette Cooper: I am in favour of a similar, or even more rapid, timetable for the civil partnerships review. In fact, during one of our earlier debates I said that I should like it to proceed alongside consideration of the Bill. Obviously it is for the Government to set the timetable, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, many of the amendments are a result of discussion and compromise along the way, but I agree that rapid progress and consultation on the civil partnerships review would be useful.

David Burrowes: The right hon. Lady has just mentioned discussion and compromise. I am not sure whether we are going to discuss Lords amendment 53, which allows freedom of
	“discussion or criticism of marriage”,
	but I understand that Labour accepted it in the other place. Obviously such discourse should not be
	“threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
	I understand that there was previously a commitment—which, indeed, was included in the Labour party manifesto —to repeal section 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986, the so-called Waddington amendment. Is it now the case that Labour would not proceed with that commitment if it ever had the opportunity to do so?

Yvette Cooper: We took the view that the amendment to the Public Order Act was not necessary, because there was already considerable protection for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. However, we accepted the Government’s amendment because we were content to accept a clarification of the Public Order Act, and because we thought it right to support the Bill. As I have said many times, the Bill is the product of a great deal of cross-party discussion and compromise on a number of issues which took place to ensure that progress could be made.
	Other Members wanted to see further changes, but I think that there is already strong protection in case law, in primary legislation and, indeed, in the Human Rights Act for freedom of religion, freedom of belief and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech goes in both directions. Just as the Bill rightly respects and protects the freedom of belief of those who do not want to celebrate same-sex marriage as part of their religion, we should support and respect freedom of belief for faith groups who do want to celebrate it. It is worth reflecting on the fact that these amendments and these debates show just how far we have come in a short period of time for LGBT equality. When the Labour Government proposed changes to the law to get rid of section 28, to end the bar on serving in the armed forces, to end discrimination in employment, to allow gay adoption and to end discrimination in the provision of goods and services, each time there was strong opposition, but now those changes are taken for granted even by those who opposed them at the time.
	The House of Lords, whose amendments we are discussing, has changed its attitudes very significantly since it voted to block the repeal of section 28 and to vote against gay adoption. Indeed, this time the House of Lords has for the first time been more progressive than the House of Commons, and we should make sure we do not get left behind. In the Commons 69% of those who voted supported the Bill. In the Lords 72% of those who voted supported the Bill. In the Commons the Bill had a majority among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, with the support of just under half of Conservative MPs. In the Lords the Bill had a majority of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, and a majority of Cross Benchers too. I hope this House will rise to that challenge by giving even stronger support to the Lords amendments and the Bill in its final stages now.

Gavin Barwell: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not just attitudes in this House or the other place that have changed, but that there has been a fundamental change in attitudes among the British public? People’s attitudes to sexuality have changed in a very progressive way. A majority of people want to see the law changed. The polling shows a very clear skew between younger voters and older voters, too, so it is very clear in which direction public opinion is moving. That, more than anything, is the key force behind this Bill.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about that change in attitudes, and we heard it from some Members in the House of Lords who now strongly support this Bill, having previously opposed other legislation that provided for equality in this area. As the legislation has changed, so attitudes have changed, and as the legislation has changed further, so attitudes have changed further. Step by step, the law and public attitudes have moved forward in a progressive way, and we need to complete those steps. I hope we will do so now with the passage of this Bill.

Diane Abbott: It is certainly the case that attitudes in this country have changed, but we have still to see more progress around the world. Just yesterday a prominent
	Cameroon gay rights activist was found murdered there. Their neck was broken and their body was broken. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this debate on this group of amendments this evening will encourage people all over the world to follow the progressive attitudes we are talking about?

Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend. As the House of Lords was discussing these amendments, I was talking to some of those outside who were joining in the demonstrations in support of this Bill. There were some who are involved in Ugandan and Cameroon groups and organisations who are campaigning for basic human rights for people who live in those countries and can find themselves persecuted. They certainly do not enjoy equality before the law or basic human rights and respect for their freedom as well as for their relationships.
	I hope this is not simply the end of a process, because this is not just about the legislation. It is also about how we make sure it is implemented in practice and how we go further in terms of equality. I hope that many of those who have opposed this Bill will come to celebrate it in future. I hope that many of the religious organisations and Churches whose religious freedom we have rightly respected and protected will also change their minds in future and celebrate the marriages of same-sex couples in their congregations. I hope, too, that all of us will do more to challenge discrimination and injustice wherever we find it—challenge prejudice and homophobic bullying in schools or the workplace—so that no one is discriminated against on grounds of sexuality and gender.
	In previous debates on the Bill, I have quoted those who have been most affected by it, and I hope that you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, if I conclude my remarks on the amendments by quoting briefly from an e-mail from someone who has contacted me to tell me of his support for the legislation. It is important that we in the House hear the voices of those who are most heavily affected by the legislation that we are debating.
	I received this e-mail from a 19-year-old man after the Bill had completed its previous stages in this House, and while it was being debated in the House of Lords. He was concerned that the House of Lords might somehow not pass the Bill, and he wrote this to me:
	“Whilst I have known for a few years that I am gay, it was only five weeks ago that I came out to my parents and close friends. Prior to this, I had gone through an initial stage of denial and then a stage of acceptance but without having anyone to turn to. The progress of the Bill through Parliament has pushed LGBT equality up the political agenda and made me feel more accepted by the society in which I live....This legislation will help young people who find themselves in a similar situation that I was in a year ago. They will be assured in the knowledge that the law recognises their relationships equally to heterosexual relationships. I have struggled through this stage of my life and now live safe in the knowledge that my close family and friends accept me for who I am...History will most certainly be on your side. With the greatest sincerity, thank you.”
	I want to conclude by saying to the House: thank you for supporting this legislation, and I hope that we will send it strongly on its way to Royal Assent this evening.

David Burrowes: I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Ministers have acted in good faith and with good intentions to make it clear that they did not want it to encroach on religious
	liberty. In fact, they have given a 100% guarantee on that. That guarantee has focused on religious premises and the wedding ceremony. Hon. Members have scrutinised the Bill in Committee, on Report and in the other place to determine how secure the locks will be. Scrutiny has been carried out by those who oppose the Bill, not by Her Majesty’s Opposition. In relation to the locks, I remember that not a single amendment was tabled in Committee to clauses 1 or 2, even though they cover a key aspect of the Bill—namely, the encroachment on religious liberty.

Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parliamentary scrutiny not only consists of tabling amendments but can involve debating the Bill that is before the House?

David Burrowes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been involved in the ups and downs of the Bill, and I have noticed from our debates on important clauses such as clauses 1 and 2, on safeguarding religious liberty and on those who wish to opt in or out of same-sex marriage ceremonies, that the bulk of the scrutiny has come from those who oppose the Bill. That includes two thirds of the members of the parliamentary Conservative party, who did not support the Bill on Third Reading, with honourable additions in the form of members of other parties.
	Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill’s passage by non-Church of England denominations, especially the Catholic Church, to which I pay tribute for its hard work and engagement with those on all sides of the argument. This is at the heart of amendments 1 and 2. Hon. Members have sought clarity through tabling amendments in Committee and on Report in this House and in the other place about the meaning of the word “compelled”. I pay tribute to the Ministers for listening to the debate and to the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this regard, and I am grateful to the Government for tabling Lords amendments 1 and 2, which properly clarify the meaning of the word. They allay many of the concerns that have been raised about the quadruple lock.
	I understand from the main denominations that they are satisfied that the locks now in place with the additional clarification are comprehensive and will protect both religious individuals and religious organisations on the issue of conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. Those amendments, coupled with Ministers’ assurances and explanations, particularly those given in the other place on the meaning of “compelled”, make it clear that compulsion “by any means”—those three words will have a very important impact on denominations on this matter—is prohibited under the Bill.
	Therefore, as I understand it, any type of detrimental or unfavourable treatment, any civil or criminal action or penalty, and any less favourable treatment undertaken by a public authority against a religious organisation or individual that has not performed, has decided not to perform or has refused to perform a clause 2(1) or clause 2(2) activity will be absolutely prohibited. The words “by any means” are enormously welcomed by denominations beyond the reaches of the Church of England.
	Religious organisations are protected. The Government’s amendments also protect them, when they are deciding whether or not to perform a clause 2(1) activity, against
	challenges—we pressed on these throughout the stages of the Bill—under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, which has been mentioned, and by way of judicial review or any other legal challenge on the ground that the religious organisation’s decision involves the exercise of a public function. I recognise that the Government have never considered that decision to involve the exercise of a public function, despite much debate and scrutiny, not least by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, the Government’s amendments 1 and 2 alleviate the perceived risk and that has an important impact; it is a real, measurable improvement made during the passage of the Bill.
	We saw progress in the Commons Public Bill Committee, when heroes and villains came as witnesses before us. The Catholic contribution was met with derision in some ways. One area that met with derision concerned the amendment before us, as the point was made in a considered way that we needed to clarify the word “compelled”. So I welcome the fact that we have moved on from that derision. We have moved on from the swatting away of the amendments that sought this clarification in the Commons Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] We have also moved on from the “Star Wars” theme and the Jedi knights discussion. I am not sure what theme we need to move us into this particular passage. The helpful contributions made in the other place have moved us towards amendments 1 and 2, so we should not underestimate the movement and progress that have been made. There has been a lot of debate about the locks and how we have reached this point.

Jim Shannon: rose—

David Burrowes: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to his diligence and scrutiny throughout the course of the Bill.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the steps forward that the amendments have made in at least addressing some of the issues raised by the religious groups. Opposition spokespeople, Members and Ministers have detailed the number of minority groups with religious views that were glad to see that the Bill had been changed. Does he recognise, as I do, the large number of religious groups, from across the whole UK, that were opposed to this measure? Even now, with the changes he has outlined, many people are opposed to it.

David Burrowes: I fully recognise that, and I have yet to come to my “but” and the concerns out there, which go beyond the issue of the marriage ceremony and religious premises. We recognise that the Government’s and Ministers’ commitment to this Bill not resulting in an encroachment on religious liberty—indeed there is a 100% guarantee—does not just encompass the walls of a church or religious premises; it goes beyond that into the public square and relates to people manifesting their faith in their workplace, their school and beyond. It is that area of scrutiny where the “but” comes in, although I still want to be positive before I get to that.

Julian Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Quakers have played a brilliant role in the passage of this Bill?

David Burrowes: I pay tribute to the Quakers and, in particular, to the Winchmore Hill friends meeting house, where there is a proud tradition of human rights. It is one of the oldest friends meeting houses and was involved in the early movement to abolish the slave trade, working alongside William Wilberforce and others. I recognise the involvement of the Quakers in these key issues and the fact that they have been involved in providing religious freedom for Quakers and others; I do recognise that engagement.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: If I may, I shall make a little more progress.
	I welcome Lords amendment 53, which is the sole amendment that has resulted in this group’s title on the selection list including the phrase “freedom of expression”. It deals with such freedom beyond the marriage ceremony, and I commend the other place for amending the Public Order Act 1986 by extending section 29JA to ensure that there is protection for
	“discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage”.
	The amendment plainly states that such discourse cannot possibly
	“be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
	The explanatory notes make the important point:
	“To the extent that this provision removes any discouragement to discourse about marriage which relates to the sex of parties to marriage (where that discourse is not threatening and intended to stir up hatred), it could be argued that it has a positive effect on the Article 9 and 10 rights of those wishing to engage in this discourse.”
	It is important that we do not overstate the extent of that protection for freedom of expression, because Lords amendment 53 does not necessarily address the situation faced by teachers and public sector workers. In 2004, in the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said:
	“I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical…I do not think that one is more valuable than the other—they are simply different.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 October 2004; c. 70.]
	If someone were to engage in such discourse publicly and loudly on the public square in any hon. Member’s constituency, they would be protected from criminalisation and prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986, which is welcome, but would such a person be protected if they were engaged in public sector employment, or working in a school or charity? Will such people be free from public authorities compelling them not to express their conscientious view?
	The Secretary of State acknowledged these concerns when she said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
	“such an uncertainty perhaps, in people’s minds, can create a chilling effect in terms of people bringing cases. I do think that there is a continuing requirement to make sure that people have clarity that any such discrimination would be not right and not lawful.”
	She and her Ministers have been at pains to give us assurance after assurance that the Bill gives adequate protection for freedom of expression and the manifestation of such views, but even at this late stage, even though we will probably have to rely on order-making powers, I ask her to ensure that there will be clear freedom of expression.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Several colleagues wish to speak. I am keen to accommodate them all, but the logic is unanswerable. If they are to have the chance to speak, brevity and colleagues’ consideration for each other will be essential.

Stephen Doughty: It is a genuine pleasure to be able to speak on such an historic occasion. The fact that we are discussing a relevantly small, concise and consensual group of Lords amendments shows the extent of the scrutiny that the Bill has received in both Houses, as well as the clear will of both Houses at all stages of its passage, notwithstanding the objections that have been raised. Despite several claims to the contrary, anyone who has followed the debates in the Chamber or in Committee, or indeed during the late-night sittings in the other place, will know that the suggestion that it has not received adequate scrutiny is not true.
	I commend the fact that most debates in this House have taken place in a highly respectful manner, which sends out a helpful message to the public and especially our young people. I am sorry to say that that was not always the case in the other place, but I hope that lessons have been learned on both sides about how to conduct such debates respectfully and in a caring manner.
	The Lords amendments underline the Bill’s fundamental characteristics of being permissive and protective. The crucial point is that the Bill will not compel anyone to do anything that they do not want to do, and religious organisations that do not want to conduct same-sex marriages will not have to do so. Given the myths that have been out there in the public, it is important to underline that the Bill is about permission and that it includes the appropriate protections that Conservative Members have sought. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has asked for clarification on several points, and I note that he is happy with Lords amendments 1 and 2, which he believes offer additional protections. It is crucial that we understand that. That was the Government’s intent and has been further strengthened following the discussions in the Lords.
	As we have noted, there have been amendments about the meaning of “compelled”. I do not think that was entirely necessary, but if it provides additional assurances and additional protections and makes people feel more comfortable, that is a good thing. We have seen important clarification of some technical aspects—for example, about who can authorise marriages. Particularly in the case of people of the Jewish faith, important clarifications were provided in the Lords, which will help with the application of the law.
	I am pleased to see clarity about deliberate malfeasance by anybody trying to marry in a religion or denomination that does not permit same-sex marriage. No misuse of the legislation would be permitted. I welcome the provisions relating to pensions. It is crucial that the review takes
	place as soon as possible in order to right a fundamental inequality that may exist for a number of couples. There is provision for secondary legislation to right that.
	Issues relating to changes of gender are complex and difficult but it is important to clarify them, especially with respect to transsexuals who did not get a gender recognition certificate because it would have meant the end of their marriage. That serves to underline the importance that most people in this country attach to marriage, and it illustrates why so many people want the Bill to go forward. The fact that some people who wanted to maintain their marriage felt unable to get their gender recognition certificate shows the crazy quandaries that we put people in. This is a chance to put all that right.

Fiona O'Donnell: My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution to the debate, as he did in the Bill Committee. Does he agree that that example shows us that marriage is about so much more than the gender of the two people who make that commitment?

Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. That is the point that has come out in all the debates.
	We have also seen protections for those who disagree. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seems happy with those. I felt that protection already existed, but if the additional protections please other people and make them feel more secure, that can only be a good thing. The comments of Baroness Stowell were important when she said that the amendments that were agreed do not allow hate speech. There are two sides to this. We will protect the rights of people who disagree in a calm and respectful manner, but when that steps over into a different type of speech, which unfortunately has happened in some of the public debate, that is entirely unacceptable.
	We have spoken about humanist marriages and I have stated my strong support for those to be able to go ahead. I am a person of faith, but I have seen how important humanist marriages are. I have had many representations from humanists in my constituency. As I have mentioned before, the former Assembly Member for my constituency is a humanist celebrant. I know how many people who want to take part in those ceremonies are ready to come forward—[Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is saying from a sedentary position but I am sure it is something supportive. I am glad that the door has been left open. I hope the review will take place. Other useful clarifications were made during that debate in the other place.
	It is important to underline again that the protections that come through this set of amendments are all in addition to existing ones in the Bill. A great deal of thought went into the Bill and I commend the Government for that and for respecting and trying to understand the concerns that had legitimately been expressed, which have been answered comprehensively. I am glad that the protections provided by the amendments are on top of the protections in the original text and in other legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. These things were all carefully considered long before I came into this place. It is important that we recognise that. It is not as though there was some sort of free-for-all or the ability to abuse various circumstances.
	In conclusion, the Lords amendments are the result of detailed, technical and careful consideration, which is the opposite of some of the claims that have been made. Ultimately, they reflect the will of Members in both Houses to right an injustice in the laws of our land. It is about putting in place the final piece of the equality jigsaw referred to by Stonewall and other organisations. I am very glad that we have reached this stage. As other hon. Members have commented, it reflects a wider change that has taken place in public attitudes. Of the many surveys that have taken place, one shows that 80% of people under the age of 50 welcome the changes and that three in every five people with faith also want them to go through. I think that reflects how far we have come, both in the public and in both Houses.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman says that three in every five people with faith support these changes, but that is not what we heard in Committee, when a number of people from different religious organisations came to us, and they referred to having memberships in the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even half a million. I am very interested to hear where he got the figure of three in every five.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is covered by an amendment, and now that time is short we really must be self-disciplined, because otherwise colleagues who wish to contribute will be unable to do so, and it will be no good complaining to me.

Stephen Doughty: Thank you for bringing us back into order, Mr Speaker.
	At an earlier stage I suggested that we might want to recognise the celebrations that have taken place elsewhere, such as in New Zealand, with lots of singing. We are wearing our carnations tonight, and I would be very happy to sing at the first of the marriages under the new legislation. To do so now would be very disorderly, but I would be happy to be present to recognise that love and that celebration. I am very glad that we have come to this place.

Julian Huppert: This is a monumental day for many people; be they straight, gay, lesbian or bi, they will benefit from the freedoms and opportunities in the Bill. I think that it will be seen as one of the great legacies of this Government. I would like to thank all those who have played a role, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whom I am delighted to see in her place, because without her personal initiative three years ago this simply would not have happened, so I say thank you to her.
	I would also like to thank colleagues in the Lords who pushed it through: Baronesses Barker and Brinton, Lord Lester, Cross Benchers such as Lord Pannick, and even the Bishop of Leicester, who pushed very hard to get a sensible outcome. I would also like to thank the Liberal Democrat LGBT+ organisation for its sterling work. Perhaps the whole House will join me in congratulating its vice-chair, Ed Fordham, who last night got engaged to his partner, Russell Eagling.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is always of great interest to the House to hear the contents of the hon. Gentleman’s Christmas card list, and I do not wish to cavil at his sincerity, but if he could turn his mighty mind to the Lords amendments with characteristic succinctness, the House will be indebted to him.

Julian Huppert: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	Let me turn to Lords amendment 10. It feels that it has been ages since I initially tabled the first version of that amendment to try to allow humanist weddings. It has been a long struggle, alongside hon. colleagues, and I would particularly like to mention the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), with whom it has been a great pleasure to work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). It was a choppy passage, which is odd because the premise seems simple enough: humanists should be able to get married under their rules. After all, Christians, Jews, Quakers, Muslims, Sikhs and even spiritualists are allowed to, so why not humanists, particularly since that works in Scotland? We had a somewhat unedifying debate at the end of our considerations in this place, which I think is a testament to the complexity of marriage law, which has caused many problems, but I am delighted that we have got there and that the review will be conducted properly with a view to ensuring that we get this right. I was critical of some officials, but I think that they have now worked very well with the British Humanist Association.
	We have also made progress on pension inequality. I must say that I do not think that the cost of equality should matter. Is £1 million too much for equality? What about £10 million, or £20 million? I do not think that is the right argument and hope that we can make progress on that, just as I hope that we can make progress on equal civil partnerships.
	The one thing really missing is a lot of issues for those who are transgendered. We have not restored the marriages, and there is much more to do with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and we are still providing pension support only for the cispartners of transpeople, not the transpeople themselves. The trans community is still marginalised and will continue to be after the Bill is passed. Far too often LGBT seems to stop too early. We must look at that. The Bill will not end homophobia, but it will make a lot of people’s lives very much happier.

Diane Abbott: I am glad to speak to this important group of amendments to this important Bill, which is a piece of proposed legislation that rights past wrong. The Bill will ensure that gay and lesbian residents of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and countrywide, will have the chance to marry the person they love, and for that love to be recognised by the law and the wider community.
	Before I move to the detail of the amendments, we have heard some thank-yous from the Front Benches, and we should also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), Baroness Thornton in the other House who helped to steer these amendments through, Baroness
	Stowell, and the Liberal Baroness Northover. One remarkable thing about the amendments is that they represent genuine cross party co-operation and hard work, and having seen the consequences of them, I know how deeply grateful the LGBT community is not just in Hackney North but right around the country for that cross-party work in the other place. One must, of course, also pay tribute to Stonewall.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Labour party has supported the principle of allowing humanist weddings in England and Wales, as already happens in Scotland, and I have urged the Government properly to consider the practical implementation of that. Every year, 2,500 non-religious couples in Scotland enjoy the meaning and sentiment that a humanist ceremony can bring to their wedding. Humanist weddings are the third most popular choice of ceremony in Scotland, and we are glad that couples in England and Wales will be able to enjoy the same choice. The Government originally stated that they could not support these amendments, but we are glad that with cross-party co-operation, we have reached a position where the Bill can be accordingly amended.
	I acknowledge that in some ways the amendments on consent and gender recognition certificates do not go far enough, but we have made some progress. Trans campaign groups interpreted the original Bill to mean that individuals undergoing gender reassignment and seeking full legal status in a new gender would have to seek the consent of their spouse before a full gender recognition certificate could be issued. Following cross-party negotiations, the Government agreed to clarify the issue of consent within the Bill, and the amendments make it clear that the spouse is not consenting to the issuing of a full gender recognition certificate, but to the terms of their marriage certificate being changed. The Government also conceded on a fast-track procedure for the gender recognition certificate where a person who has been living in a new gender for an extended period, and I am glad to rise in support of those amendments.
	The relationship between legislation made in this House and popular opinion is complex. Sometimes popular opinion leads politicians, and sometimes politicians lead popular opinion. On this issue, popular opinion has led the House, and all the better for that.
	To conclude, I can do no better than quote the words of a Member in the other place, my noble and very good Friend Lord Alli. Yesterday he said:
	“You have given me dignity where there was sometimes fear, you have given me hope where there was often darkness, and you have given me equality where there was sometimes prejudice”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 534.]

Gerald Howarth: I am pleased to join in the celebration tonight in so far as I have been able to find one clause in this wretched Bill with which I agree. Lords amendment 53 relates to freedom of speech, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been instrumental in accepting it. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that a Bill for which there is absolutely no mandate, and which a majority of Conservatives voted against, has been bulldozed through both Houses. Just two hours of debate tonight is an absolute parliamentary disgrace and the Government should think carefully in future because if they want the support
	of Members on these Benches, offending large swathes of the Conservative party is not a good way of going about it.

Julian Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: Forgive me but I will not give way because a lot of colleagues wish to speak.
	I am pleased with amendment 53, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said about the chill factor is important. I advise the House to be very careful. Despite all that has been said here, lots of people out there will feel unable to express, or will be inhibited from expressing, their true opinion that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That is because we live in a politically correct society. It will be interesting to see what happens to teachers. How many teachers will feel able to express their views, even in denominational schools, for fear of upsetting their political masters and losing their jobs?

Jane Ellison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: I will not, because I have limited time and a lot of colleagues want to speak.
	I hope that the Government are serious about moving swiftly to prevent that from happening and that the Opposition will support them should they decide to do so.
	This is not happening only outside this place, Mr Speaker, but inside this place.

Jane Ellison: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
	Two weeks ago I held a meeting here. I have here two pamphlets, “Same sex marriage: the cost and consequences of redefining marriage”, and “Freedom of speech: street evangelism”.

Chris Bryant: Which amendment is this?

Gerald Howarth: This is about freedom of expression, as the hon. Gentleman ought to be aware.
	Someone who was coming to my meeting had several copies of those pamphlets. I hope you will be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that the pamphlets were seized and removed from that person. I was incensed and went down to Cromwell Green to find out what was going on. When I said, “By what authority has this material been removed?”, I was told that it was by the authority of the House. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House: if that is going on in this place, can you imagine what will go on up and down the country once this Bill is enacted?
	On Monday my noble Friend Lord Fowler said in another place:
	“It has never ever been our case—those of us who want reform—that opposition is homophobic.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 544.]
	I fear that anybody who speaks out in favour of the belief that marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman will be accused of being homophobic.
	Most people do not want to be accused of suchlike. Most people do not want to be accused of being racist and therefore did not raise the issue of immigration. Of course, we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that it is now all right to talk about immigration, but for a long time it was not.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) still wish to intervene on me? After all, this is about freedom of expression.

Jane Ellison: My point was about freedom of expression, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When we debated this in Committee, one of the examples given was that in all the years that Catholic teachers in Catholic schools have been teaching their own views on abortion, nobody has been prosecuted for that. People have been free to teach that view within that religious context, so there is no reason to think that teachers in religious schools will have any problem with this Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is interesting that surgeons are not required to perform abortions. What sort of tolerance is it—I am looking at my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for this Bill to impose on registrars who may have served for 25 years that their conscience will not be allowed to be spared and they will have to do as it requires or surrender their jobs? This is not the tolerance that the Conservative party should be espousing in our country. If there are provisions whereby atheists do not have to teach religion in schools and surgeons do not have to perform abortions if it is against their conscience, why was the amendment in the other place, which was argued for by so many noble Lords and Ladies, rejected?

Maria Miller: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s speech, but it is important that the House is aware that registrars do not wish to have any sort of provision. They perform a public function and they believe it is very important that they do so without any sort of dispensation. [Interruption.]

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) tells me that there is no representative body for registrars and so they were not able to give a corporate view. However, there are registrars who do not wish to—[Interruption.] Apparently I am going to be shouted down. If I go out on to the streets, what will happen? Will Labour Members uphold my right to freedom of expression or join in the shouting?
	I understand that a van drove around yesterday proclaiming the case of those of us who oppose the Bill. It had a picture on it of two men and a little girl under the caption, “What about Sophie?”, but the driver received such abuse that the company stopped the van going around the square. I say to those Opposition Members who are keen to champion freedom of expression and to stand up for minorities that they should stand up for the majority who feel that they are being intimidated.
	That brings me neatly to the question: what about children? Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor the Opposition spokeswoman, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has mentioned children. I want to celebrate marriage.
	Marriage between a man and a woman leads, generally speaking, to children, but marriage between two men or two women will not lead to the production of children. This is a very serious matter. Therefore, on the question of freedom of expression, I hope that those of us who proclaim that view will not be shouted down or denied our view.
	Others wish to speak so I shall conclude by saying that I believe that, ideally, children need a mother and a father—that is what all the evidence shows—and preferably a mother and father in a marriage. I am utterly, completely, irredeemably opposed to this Bill and this is my last chance to speak against it before it is enacted. I believe it will lead to serious unintended consequences and that it debases traditional marriage. I will conclude with the words of a former Deputy Speaker of this House who is better known to us as Sir Michael Lord, but who now rejoices in the title of Lord Framlingham:
	“This Bill is built entirely on pretence. It pretends that there is no difference between a man and a woman.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 544.]
	That is a formidable basis upon which to build legislation that affects all our people in this land.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have 31 minutes remaining. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate on Lords amendments, because this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Having listened to the often powerful and personal testimony of many Members from all parties and given that many of them have suffered abuse, violence and discrimination, I did not feel that I had earned the right to comment. Tonight, however, I think we can celebrate.
	It saddens me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) thought that Members were seeking to shout him down when he spoke to the amendments on freedom of expression. No one was attempting to do that, but some of his comments provoked, let us say, an emotive response from Opposition Members. Whenever I have seen people outside this place celebrating the passage of the Bill, I have seen others holding placards with statements that I found deeply distasteful—some referred to a man lying with another man as a sin—but I never saw anyone being lifted by the police.

Gerald Howarth: It’s in the Bible.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to heckle me. That is not about freedom expression; it is about a healthy debate in which we all have strong emotions, and I would expect no less of him. I hope he respects the fact that the feelings of those of us who support the Bill are as strong as his.
	It is clear that people have been able to air their views. The hon. Gentleman referred to a van with the caption, “But what about Sophie”. I do not approve of anyone removing anyone else’s right to freedom of expression, but at the same time I think that sometimes we have to put ourselves in the shoes of people we would not always walk alongside. For someone to imply that a
	loving parent is not fit to perform their role is deeply offensive. We need a little sensitivity when considering these issues.
	As a few hon. Members have said, Lords amendments 1 and 2 are not absolutely necessary, but I support anything that reassures Members who do not support the Bill that it is not about removing people’s freedom to hold their views. The Bill has struck the right balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said. There was rigorous scrutiny in the Public Bill Committee. On many a sleepless night, I invited my hon. Friend into my living room as I watched the Committee’s sittings. The Committee struck the right tone, as have the shadow Minister and the Minister in this debate. We are sensitive to the feelings of those who oppose the Bill and I am glad that they have found some comfort in those two amendments.
	Lords amendment 10 considers the issue of humanist weddings. As a Scot, I was incredibly lucky to attend a humanist wedding for the first time almost two years ago. Unfortunately, I have attended a few humanist funerals as well. The couple did not feel that a register office would allow them to express their love and commitment in the way that they wanted on their wedding day. It was a deeply moving ceremony, full of music and personal contributions from the two young people who were marrying each other.
	The amendment is welcome. I hope that we can overcome the complexities. In Scotland, such ceremonies are enabled by the fact that it is the person who is fit and capable to perform the marriage, not the place that is suitable. I am sure that the Government will work with the Opposition, as they have on many of the issues in the Bill, to find a way to ensure that couples in England and Wales can celebrate their love through a humanist wedding.
	It is an interesting feature of our modern democracy in the UK that we can play the game of equality tag, whereby one of the devolved Parliaments or Assemblies sets the pace on an equality issue and this place catches up. If I leave this House in May 2015, I will be proud that I was here tonight to see this Parliament lead the way for the rest of the UK. I look forward to the Scottish Parliament bringing forward its own legislation and to my colleagues there having to deal with as many e-mails as I have received during the passage of the Bill.
	On Lords amendment 11, it is heartening that the Government and the Opposition have managed to find a way to move forward on this issue. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that we cannot put a price on equality. We need to work with the sector, as we did on the issue of access to public transport for people with disabilities, when there was a recognition that we needed to give the sector time to make all vehicles accessible. I remember the furore over the costs. It was said that it was not realistic or practical. However, when we get into a bus or a taxi now, we all expect that vehicle to be accessible. Labour has consistently supported an amendment on this issue and it is great that the Government now say that we will have a time-limited review so that we can make progress. The gender of the two people who commit to a relationship should not affect their rights. The rights within a marriage should be the same for everyone. I look forward to hearing the conclusions of that review.
	Lords amendments 42 and 43, which were tabled by the Government, demonstrate that the Bill will have consequences that some of us had not foreseen. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who is no longer in his place, said that when someone in a relationship goes through a gender transition, it is important that that fact does not change the value, authenticity and worth of the marriage. Such couples should remain in a marriage if they wish to do so.
	In conclusion, it is a matter of great sorrow that some of my constituents have felt disappointed in me personally for supporting the Bill. Members who oppose it seem to be genuinely hurt and outraged that we would dare to push it through, but I hope that we can all respect it, just as those who refer to themselves as defenders of traditional marriage can understand that for those of us who support the Bill we can no more imagine changing our minds on this than we can imagine swapping our children for someone else’s.

Diane Abbott: Many of my constituents are sad that I am supporting the Bill, but they also know, after more than 25 years, that for me human rights are non-negotiable.

Fiona O'Donnell: My hon. Friend makes another excellent contribution. I am glad that society will be different from the one I was born into. There was progress by the time my children were born, but as my grandchildren rapidly arrive on the planet I hope we have a better society still. This is a good Bill that will do good. It has been made better by these amendments, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to remaining colleagues wishing to speak, of whom there are seven, to factor into their thinking that we have 21 minutes left? It is up to colleagues, but that would be in the spirit of equality.

Nick Herbert: I will endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker.
	Lords amendment 53, on freedom of expression, is important. It has been the mission of many of us to ensure that this important step forward on equality also protects religious freedom. In making it clear that mere criticism of same-sex marriage is not an offence, the amendment surely deals with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the “chilling” factor that such legislation may engender. I must say to him that it also behoves those who call for freedom of speech to ensure that the words they choose are temperate and reasonable. Words may not and should not become a matter for criminal law. I am with my hon. Friend on that, including on the defence of free speech in relation to the offence of incitement of hatred against homosexual people. However, when phrases such as “aggressive homosexuals”—the phrase my hon. Friend used on Second Reading—are used, they take freedom of expression to an unreasonable extent and do cause offence.

Gerald Howarth: Would my hon. Friend have me prosecuted for it?

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend has not listened to a word I have said. I have just said that nobody should be prosecuted for words that are merely offensive, but that does not absolve those who use those words of causing that offence. If my hon. Friend and others are calling for freedom of expression and not to be prosecuted—as they should not be—for merely criticising activity or conduct, they have a responsibility to use words carefully that do not cause grave offence to a considerable section of the community. It would be considered intolerable to talk of aggressive blacks or aggressive Jews. Perhaps even my hon. Friend would not consider it acceptable to do that, but he did consider it acceptable to use the phrase “aggressive homosexuals”. I regret that, and that is why I find it so difficult to accept what he says about the importance of the chilling factor.
	The second group of amendments to which I shall refer relates to those applying to clause 9. On Lords amendment 4 on the conversion of civil partnerships into marriage, it has surely been a fundamental proposition of the Bill that the status of civil partnerships is no longer considered adequate to confer equality on gay people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just checking that I had not misheard the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever his temptation to dilate on Lords amendment 4 he must resist it, because that is in the second group that we have not reached. He should stick to the first group, and I am sure he has got plenty to say on that.

Nick Herbert: I am very happy to stick to the first group, Mr Speaker.
	I hope that Lords amendments 10, 15, 26, 27 and 54, relating to humanist weddings, are in that group. They make provision to allow the dislocation of weddings from premises, to which further consideration will be given. I was at such a wedding in the United States a few weeks ago, and at such weddings it is common to read words that were delivered by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts 10 years ago and which ring true today:
	“Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. Without the right to marry one is excluded from the full range of human experience”.
	In words that get to the kernel of the matter and these amendments, the Court continued:
	“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.... The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.... For no rational reason the marriage laws…discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.”
	That surely is the point. It is no longer considered acceptable by a majority of the public, the House of Commons and the other place.
	The Bill was not bulldozed through; it was voted through by considerable majorities in both Houses, and it reflects a fundamental change of attitude for the better in our society. The Bill will do no harm to those not affected and it will protect those who do not wish to join in, but, in recognising the place of gay people in our society, it will do a great deal of good for people who love each other and want to express a permanent
	commitment to each other. For that reason, I will proud to have been a Member of the House of Commons when it passed the Bill and to see it—I hope—given Royal Assent within a matter of days.

Sheila Gilmore: Many of my constituents contacted me who support humanist weddings but were disturbed when they thought they were going to drop out of the Bill. I know the Government were concerned they might be a diversion and so delay the Bill, but I am pleased that, after discussion and debate, they have been included. I am marginally amused, however, that the amendment asks for a review, given that I have sat through several Bill Committees recently in which the Opposition have been berated for tabling amendments seeking a review, rather than immediate action, and for somehow wimping out. Perhaps a review is appropriate if there are concerns about the mechanics of how something will work.
	Lots of people would have liked the opportunity of a humanist ceremony. Certainly, I wish they had been available when I got married—more years ago than I care to recall. At that time, if someone was not religious—I belonged to a family that was strong, but not religious—the choice was a simple registry office ceremony or, for some, to pretend to be religious. Humanist ceremonies, whether for weddings or other periods of life, offer something more profound that reflects upon our humanity and our connections to each other. Humanist weddings give people the opportunity to celebrate their love and commitment to each other, while, in sadder circumstances, humanist funerals avoid that vague religious feeling that might be totally meaningless to the family and which might have meant nothing to the person who died. It is the same with weddings.
	I am pleased that this measure is going forward, therefore, and I hope that my constituents who wrote to me will be pleased. Like many others, I have constituents who are disturbed by the Bill, but I hope and believe that in a few years a lot of their concerns will have been put to bed and we will have moved on.

Edward Leigh: It is instructive that, despite your valiant efforts, Mr Speaker, this debate has been so discursive, because very little has changed in the other place. We had long, lyrical passages from the shadow Secretary of State about the beauty of marriage, but even a cursory examination of the amendments—[Interruption.]

Chris Bryant: You’re smiling now. So you can smile.

Edward Leigh: I can smile, yes.
	Even a cursory examination of the amendments made in the other place confirms that very little has been done to protect freedom of conscience. We get a crumb of comfort, it is true, from Lords amendments 1 and 2, which tighten up the quad locks that are meant to stop Churches doing same-sex marriages. We were told repeatedly in this place that the quad locks needed no tightening, but better late than never, I suppose. A sinner—even the Government—who comes late into the vineyard of truth is just as welcome.
	Then there is Lords amendment 53. Apparently it means that if someone says that they believe in a man-woman marriage, they will not be deemed to be “inciting homophobic hatred”. What a bizarre country we live in, when declaring one’s support for the Marriage Act 1949, under which most of us were married, could be deemed to be stirring up hatred. Indeed, such is the risk that we have to legislate against it. I hope that amendment 53 has some read-across to the offences in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and other offences with a much lower threshold than “homophobic incitement”. They are the laws that we should be worried about, even after our amendment to remove the “insulting” limb comes into effect.
	Nothing whatever has been done to alleviate the concerns of thousands of Church schools and tens of thousands of teachers, who fear that they will be ordered to teach a view of marriage that conflicts profoundly with their deeply held views. I predict that within five years a chill will descend on the 2,200 Catholic schools, because they will feel under an obligation to teach a view of marriage that is “balanced”—a word that Ministers themselves have used. I am sorry, but the view of the Catholic Church and other Churches on marriage is not “balanced”; it is a view. It is the view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. It is not a balanced view; it is a view, and increasingly a “balanced” view will have to be taught.
	Ministers keep telling us that the views of those teachers and others who are worried about this issue are respectable and that they are free to hold and express them, but they have done nothing to guarantee that. That is being left to chance. When we have a toxic mix of this Bill and the Equality Act 2010, anything could happen. It is like an experiment with unstable substances that could blow up at any minute. The Government should be legislating to stabilise the situation, but they steadfastly refuse. Earlier this year, the House voted for my ten-minute rule Bill to protect employees from suffering detriment at the hands of their employers for believing in traditional marriage. Ministers kept saying, “It’ll never happen”, but of course it is already happening. We have all read about the cases, even before the Bill has become law. The Government just do not care enough to solve the problem and protect Church schools.
	When gay rights activists—not aggressive; they have their point of view, which is just as valid as anybody else’s—demand better pension rights, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 11 and pages of consequentials. When transsexual activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their view—demand changes to the Bill, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 44 and all that goes with it. When humanist activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their point of view—demand the right to humanist weddings, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 10 and pages more like it. However, when people who believe in traditional marriage demand better protections, simply so that they cannot be mistreated for failing to support same-sex marriage, the Government harden their heart, close their mind and refuse to do a thing.
	I know some people think that this will all go away after the Bill becomes an Act in the next few days. They wish it would for political reasons, but by the time of the next general election, we will have a whole catalogue of new cases like that of Adrian Smith and his Facebook
	page, and the Wimbledon street preacher who got locked in a cell for hours for his sermon on 1 Thessalonians. We will have teachers—such as the teachers Lord Dear referred to in his speeches in the Lords—being ordered to teach that their own views on marriage amount to nothing but bigotry. And the electorate will hold us accountable for doing nothing to help them.

Nia Griffith: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for the hard work they have put in, particularly on the amendments dealing with humanism and pensions. I also commend their collaboration with the Government Front-Bench teams here and in the House of Lords. People often hear about conflict in Parliament, but not about the good work that goes on behind the scenes.
	I do not want anything to slow the Bill’s progress on to the statute book or to delay people celebrating same-sex marriage, but a review of both humanist weddings and pensions seems a sensible way forward. I have witnessed the excellent way in which humanist celebrants can help people at funerals—a sensitive situation, particularly for those with no religious beliefs who do not really wish to engage with such beliefs at those sensitive moments. Councillor friends of mine, instead of going to a civic wedding ceremony in a chapel or a church, decided to have a humanist ceremony, which was more in keeping with their beliefs, much more honest and less hypocritical than using a chapel simply for the day of that civic ceremony. Humanist marriage ceremonies fall exactly into that category—offering an opportunity for some depth and consideration, without having to adopt some form of religious belief in a rather hypocritical and shallow way.

Crispin Blunt: Having made such arguments on Report, I would like to record how delighted I am that the amendments on humanist weddings are to be included in the Bill. They will be as significant a part the Bill as the same-sex marriage proposals. Many people will be affected, and I am delighted that the Government conceded the point in the other place.

Nia Griffith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
	Moving on to pensions and survivor benefits, again, we do not want to do anything to delay the Bill, but we want a review. It is a complex subject, and people have made wild estimates about the costs. They seem to forget that what is paid out often comes back, to some degree, in the form of taxation, so the situation is nothing like as simple as it might sound. The principle that those who have contributed have the right to the same benefits—whether they are in a same-sex or an opposite-sex marriage—is absolutely fundamental. We certainly want to make sure that that is where we get to. It will take time; it will need working out; it will need costing; it will need phasing in—but the important thing is the principle. We really want to see the review.
	I support amendment 10, on humanist marriage ceremonies, and amendment 11 and related provisions, on the pension review, and I very much hope we can celebrate the passage of this Bill tonight.

Mike Freer: First, I pay tribute to both Front-Bench teams—both here and in the other place—for how they have steered the Bill through. I visited the other place and was quite impressed with the quality of the debate and its calmness.
	On amendment 11, it is worth revisiting why the pension inequality has to be addressed. The inequality between survivor benefits of civil partners and married couples is simply not sustainable, but it is worth repeating that this issue relates to contracted-in schemes. The key point is that for a man or woman in what some would call a traditional marriage, the pension rights in the event of the partner’s death go back to the date the pension scheme was joined. If, however, someone is a surviving civil partner, even though the partner might have been in the scheme for 20 years, the pension rights go back only to the date when civil partnerships became law. I must point out that this is not just a fractional difference. In the example of John Walker, his civil partner would get a surviving pension of £500 a year. If the civil partnership were dissolved and he married a woman, she would be entitled to £41,000 a year in the form of a widow’s pension. That discrimination is simply not defensible.
	The important message to remember is that although survivor benefits are currently unequal, contribution rates are not. Two men—one straight, one gay—both pay in at the same contribution rate. If their contribution rate is not determined by their sexuality, why should their pension be?
	The bottom line is that if contributions are equal, pension benefits should be equal too. I welcome the review, because we can get to the bottom of how the figures were determined. As has been mentioned before, neither the Library nor the National Association of Pension Funds can help to identify the schemes. We do not know where the figure has come from. That is why the review is crucial, and the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions will add to the debate.
	The House has spoken resoundingly on the issue, not once but twice. The other place spoke resoundingly in rejecting unhelpful amendments, and last night the Bill passed without a vote. Whatever personal objections colleagues have and however sincerely they are held, there comes a time when opponents have to bow their head to the will of this House and give way graciously.
	Finally, I thank the Government for the Bill. When it receives Royal Assent, we will be helping to build a more tolerant society. We are saying to people tonight, “Whoever you are, whoever you love, you are respected and valued as an equal member of our society.” Members can go home tonight knowing that for once we have done some good and for once we have made a difference. I look forward to issuing wedding invitations in due course.

Susan Elan Jones: I am so pleased that tonight we will pass this Bill, which is clearly good news for the many gay couples across our country who want to get married. I also believe that it will be very good news to people in other countries—those lesbian and gay people who have to face unacceptable degrees of persecution every day of their lives. Members should make no mistake about it: there will be Commonwealth countries watching what we do tonight,
	and if we improve the lives of people who are treated unacceptably in those countries, we will have done a great good.
	I do not know whether, in the short time remaining, I will be able to answer the points about the so-called chill, but I want to. We are not dealing with hypotheticals. Let us consider Catholic Spain, a country that for several years now has allowed the marriage of gay couples. I think there have been about 22,000 such marriages, yet not a single case has been brought to the European Court of Human Rights concerning a gay couple who wish to be married in church—
	Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
	Question agreed to.
	Lords amendment 1 accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 55 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 54 and 55.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services Act 2012 (Consumer Credit) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland

That the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2013 (S.R. (N.I.), 2013, No. 175), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 July (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 5) Rules 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1571), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 July (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)) and Order, 9 July),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of Digital Region Limited, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £45 million.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House (17 and 18 July)

Ordered,
	That, at the sittings on Wednesday 17 and Thursday 18 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until—
	(a) any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
	(b) he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—(Nicky Morgan.)

PETITIONS

Isham by-pass (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed by 833 of my constituents. It reads as follows:
	The Humble Petition of residents of Isham, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That there is an urgent need to construct the A509 Isham by-pass, not only to relieve the current unacceptable number of traffic movements through the village, but also mindful of the extra proposed traffic movements which will occur due to:
	The 5,500 houses that are being built at Cranford; the 3,500 houses that are being built at the station in Wellingborough; the proposed 3,000 house development off Niort Way in Wellingborough; the proposed industrial site development at Appleby Farm in Wellingborough with an estimated daily vehicle movement of 2,000, the majority of which will be lorries; the widening of the A14 road at the A509 Junction one mile from Isham.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough work together to ensure that the Isham A509 bypass is constructed imminently.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001199]

Territorial Army Centre (Caernarfon)

Hywel Williams: This petition was organised within a week of the announcement of the closure of the Territorial Army Centre in Caernarfon, which has a
	population of 9,600. It has already been signed by 2,204 people, which is a substantial proportion of that number. It reads as follows:
	The Petition of the people of Caernarfon and the surrounding district,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Territorial Army Centre at Caernarfon and draws the House's attention to the long and unique tradition of service in the forces by people from the community; further notes that the Caernarfon centre has an important role in recruitment given that it serves a very large rural area, that similar facilities will not easily be available elsewhere.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to retain the current usage of the site and explore complementary uses so that it can be further developed as an important and valued strategic resource.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001209]

Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to present his petitions, let me give him some guidance. It is not necessary for him to perambulate back and forth between his seat and the Chair for the purposes of his presentation. He should remain in his place. Let me also advise him that, while he is at liberty to speak briefly about each of his three petitions, it would be a mistake for him to suppose that because he is speaking about three, he can speak for three times as long as he would have spoken if he were speaking to one. He should speak with the brevity of which I know he is periodically capable.

Signage of the Welsh Senedd building

Kevin Brennan: I am immensely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I shall present three petitions from my constituent, Mr Gruffydd Meredith.
	In this petition Mr Meredith calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to rename the National Assembly for Wales as the Parliament of Wales or Senedd Cymru, with appropriate signage being erected so that every visitor will know its significance.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Mr Gruffydd Meredith,
	Declares that up to 12 million people from all over the world visit Cardiff bay and pass the Senedd building annually yet the majority of these must have no idea what the Senedd building actually is or does, as they have no way of knowing unless they enter the building and ask the staff; further that Wales must be one of the few countries in the world that is does not have a sign denoting its own national parliament and that the Senedd building is one of Wales’ most important institutions and belongs to the people of Wales; further that there is a need and duty for the Senedd building to therefore showcase and make itself known to all the citizens of Wales as well as to the rest of the world.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons makes the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the renaming of the current National Assembly for Wales or Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru to Senedd Cymru (Parliament of Wales), placing a large sign on the main public entrance of the Senedd building overlooking Cardiff bay, with prominent lettering denoting ‘Senedd Cymru’ (Parliament of Wales), together with an impressive Welsh flag placed centrally at the front top of the sloping roofed entrance.
	And the Petitioner remains etc.
	[P001210]

A Unified Welsh power grid

Kevin Brennan: This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to allow for the creation of a unified power grid.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
	Declares that the current and historical energy map of Wales shows all the classic indicators of an extractive economy, with the extractive drainage lines either extending east out of Wales or to the ports; further that Wales is already greatly more than self sufficient in electricity generation, producing at least twice more electricity than what we use but most of this is given to the UK national grid and then sold back to us; further that future renewable energy projects for Wales show that we could be easily producing at least four times more than we use if we realised basic achievable renewable energy projects (including tidal lagoons and the Severn estuary instead of a barrage) and this without even mentioning the possibility of clean coal and methane gas extraction, which could make this figure higher again; further that joining the currently unconnected electricity lines could be done with specially designed pylons that blend in with the Welsh environment, by underground cables or by placing undersea cables in Cardigan Bay and this would mean that all of Wales’ energy production is quantifiable and our abundant excess energy can be exported and providing potentially thousands of new jobs.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the development of an unified Welsh power grid, joining the currently unconnected electricity lines on North, Mid and South Wales.
	And the Petitioner remains etc.
	[P001211]

A Welsh Second Chamber

Kevin Brennan: This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to establish a second, scrutinising Chamber in Wales to be called Ty’r bobol or Citizen House.
	The petition declares:
	The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
	Declares that there is a need for a second scrutinising chamber—a ‘Ty’r bobol’/ ‘Citizen House’, made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random from all over Wales in the citizen jury style system; further declares there should also be representation by independent non party affiliated experts and spokespeople from all fields suggested by small to medium sized businesses, non charity community groups, schools and colleges; further declares that this system of demarchy would provide Welsh politics with a much needed opportunity for independent scrutiny by the people and would make sure that the Welsh legislative process and the Welsh Government in general is able to be challenged and truly held to account where necessary.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the forming of a second scrutinising chamber in Wales made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random in the jury style system.
	And the Petitioner remains etc.
	[P001212]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Julie Hilling: Since the tragic death of Jade Lomas Anderson in March of this year, I have been working with her mum and dad, Shirley and Michael Anderson, their family and the wider community to collect signatures on this petition. I commend in particular Michael and Shirley for their bravery, Sandra Lucas, Councillors Karen Aldred and Fred Walker and my staff team for their hard work in collecting 4,618 signatures, which were presented to Downing street today, as well as the businesses, schools and churches who have done so much to help, and the people of Bolton West who have shown their support in signing the petition.
	The petition declares:
	The Petition of residents of Bolton West,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001200]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Paul Goggins: This petition is from several hundred of my constituents who want to see tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I want to thank members of Jade Lomas Anderson’s family for all their work in collecting signatures, and in particular my constituent Mrs Kathleen Holden, who is Jade’s grandmother. The petition is in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Wythenshawe and Sale East,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001201]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Yasmin Qureshi: I am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I present it on behalf of a constituent, and I pay tribute to the grandmother who collected signatures after Abigail Boyd was attacked by dogs in Farnworth.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Bolton,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001202]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Luciana Berger: I, too, present a petition on behalf of residents of the UK on dangerous dogs laws. I was very proud to deliver the petition to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), the parents of Jade Lomas Anderson and my constituent Angela McGlynn. Her son John Paul Massey was tragically mauled to death by a dog in 2009. The petition calls on the Government to take further action. We need to prevent these attacks from happening. Some 239 people have signed a petition in similar terms on my website.
	This petition is in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West.
	The petition declares:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001203]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Kate Green: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including residents of my constituency, in identical terms to the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Stretford and Urmston,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001204]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Sharon Hodgson: Following the brutal and totally unprovoked attack on the 13-year-old Sunderland schoolgirl Meghan Reynolds, which left her requiring four hours of surgery and 48 stitches to horrific facial wounds, almost 100 of my constituents have signed petitions on this subject, and numerous petitions are still in circulation. I will present those to the House at a later date. I, too, am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has passionately led this campaign and pushed for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001205]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Nicholas Dakin: I am proud to present this petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including many residents of my Scunthorpe county constituency, in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001206]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Heidi Alexander: I, too, would like to present a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I present it on behalf of my constituents of Lewisham East.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Lewisham East,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001207]

Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs

Gordon Marsden: It is a great pleasure to associate myself with the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of Blackpool South in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Blackpool South,
	Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001208]

FISHING QUOTAS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Peter Aldous: I am pleased to have secured this debate before the summer recess, as it provides us with a timely opportunity to consider the future of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. Last month, the Minister provided details of the agreed reforms to the common fisheries policy, which provides the framework within which fishing in the UK will be administered over the course of the next few years. Its provisions are generally welcome, though its success will depend on how domestic fisheries are managed.
	Last Wednesday in the High Court, Mr Justice Cranston delivered an approved judgment that will pave the way for the introduction of a new system of management that could be fairer and more environmentally friendly than its predecessor and that could provide an opportunity to reverse the fortunes of many fishing communities around the British isles. That is good news, although I sense that the path to this promised land will not be an easy one to travel along.
	My interest and concern are for the inshore fleet that fishes out of Lowestoft in Suffolk, in my constituency. Like so many other fleets, it has had a raw deal in recent years. The Lowestoft fleet, which is a pale shadow of its former self, used to dominate the local economy. A significant contributory factor to its decline has been the way in which fishing quotas have been allocated in recent years. It is not possible to turn back the clock to the town’s glory years, but there is an opportunity to build an industry that can play a role in bringing back prosperity to an area that has struggled in recent years.
	It is important to state at the outset that the Minister has achieved an enormous amount in the three years he has been in post. He has negotiated hard in the CFP reforms and delivered a settlement that is good for the UK. He has also listened to the concerns of the inshore fleet and made proposals to address those in the face of opposition from the producer organisations. His Department then defended this decision staunchly and successfully in the High Court. We owe him a debt of gratitude, for we have arrived at a position where we can provide a new beginning for the fishing industry in the UK. As Charles Clover concluded in his article in The Sunday Times, the Minister and
	“his heirs have a once in a generation opportunity to throw the dice again on behalf of wild fish and the greater good”.
	It is appropriate to say a bit about the inshore fleet and the under-10 metre boats—about the people involved and the situation they find themselves in today. Such boats comprise more than 77% of the UK fleet and employ over 65% of the fleet’s total work force, yet they currently receive only 4% of the total quota available to the UK. What is good for the under-10s is largely good for the ports in which they are based, and vice versa; they have considerable potential to deliver economic, environmental and cultural benefits for their coastal communities, many of which are among the most deprived in the country. They are also good for fish stocks, as theirs is a low-impact, sustainable form of fishing. Moreover, the income they generate is likely to stay in
	these communities and permeate down the supply chain, which has invariably been built up over many decades but which has been much eroded in recent years.
	Today, that is very much the case in Lowestoft. It now has a small industry, but the infrastructure is still there and with the right policy framework it can deliver more for the area. The work of these fishermen still fishing out of Lowestoft should be contrasted with that of the eight affiliated vessels in the Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation, which are all controlled by fishing interests based in the Netherlands. Those boats have UK fishing licences and hold British quota, but they contribute nothing to the local economy. Dutch-controlled vessels fishing British quota boast an annual turnover of £48 million, yet 1% of the fish they catch is landed in the UK.
	In recent years, the under-10s have had a raw deal and in the Minister’s own words they have been “hanging on” by their “fingernails“. The root cause of their plight is the fixed quota allocation system introduced in 1999. As the under-10s did not keep records of their catch in the 1994 to 1996 reference period, the quota they received at that time was a best estimate, subsequently shown to be a major under-assessment, for which they have been paying ever since. Although there have been attempts to address the situation, as Jerry Percy of NUTFA—the New Under Ten Fishermens Association—has pointed out, with the under-10s starting from such a low level of quota in the first place, an additional percentage based simply on past allocations will be of little, if any, use.
	Since 1999, the situation has got worse in many respects. The way the system was devised has meant that the producer organisations have been able to hold or acquire fixed quota allocation units, knowing that they could retain them if they did not use them. They could sell or lease them to the under-10s on their own terms, at their own whim and fancy. That conjures up the image of the under-10s taking on the role of Oliver Twist holding out the bowl for more food, only to be denied. Moreover, where reallocations have taken place, they have been profoundly unsatisfactory, as they have been neither permanent nor predictable, and they have invariably taken place towards the end of the fishing season.
	The 2007 decommissioning scheme simply exacerbated the problem, creating more “slipper skippers”, with vessel owners entitled to retain the fixed quota allocation units even when their vessels had been decommissioned. A system has, thus, developed whereby the under-10s do not have enough quota to make a living and are in effect dying a slow, lingering death, while quota held by the producer organisations was not being used, and attempts by Government to encourage gifts of unused quota have invariably come to nothing.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, because it is important to him, to other Members in the Chamber and, especially, to me and Portavogie in my constituency. The problem is not just the quotas that are set, but those that are reduced by Europe. The Minister works energetically on behalf of the fishing industry in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Europe needs to give quotas that will make the industry that I represent viable? The industry has evidence to support its belief about the numbers of fish in the sea, so it needs Europe to give them back.

Peter Aldous: Communities and the fishing industry all around the coast have been affected. The problem in recent years has essentially been quota management, but the common fisheries policy, on which the Minister has been fighting tirelessly over the past three years, is also a factor, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	The Minister, to his credit, tried to impose a modest redistribution of unused quota, which equated to 0.1% of the fixed quota allocation units in the UK. He sought to be reasonable and conciliatory to POs in doing that, and when representations were made against his proposals, he reduced the number of realigned units from 10,494 to 7,901. Despite that, the producer organisations took the view that the Government’s proposal deprived them, without compensation, of what they viewed as a valuable entitlement, even though it was minimal and, in effect, represented quota that was not being used. They therefore launched a judicial review arguing that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, was interfering with their property rights, and had behaved in a discriminatory manner.
	Last Wednesday, Mr Justice Cranston delivered his judgment. He found in favour of the Government, dismissing the producer organisations’ challenge. His judgment contained several conclusions. He summarily dismissed the producer organisations’ main argument as
	“falling at the first hurdle”.
	He expressed sympathy with the views of NUTFA and Greenpeace, the two interveners in the case, that fishing quota and the fixed quota allocation system should always be considered against the backdrop of the principle that fish are a public resource, which is an understanding that dates back to the Magna Carta. He said that the Secretary of State had done nothing that disabled him from changing the fixed quota allocation system to address consistent non-use of quota. He expressed the view that the Secretary of State’s decision to reallocate quota was justified and that the means chosen were proportionate. He said that the Secretary of State’s decision did not constitute interference with, or deprivation of, possessions, as the producer organisations had contended. He also expressed the opinion that the producer organisations and their members have no proprietary interest in the fishing stock itself, and that fixed quota allocation units give no right to any specific amount of fishing stock in advance of the annual ministerial decisions on quota that take place each December.
	With the decision coming shortly after the agreement on CFP reform, there is now a real opportunity to carry out a root and branch reform of UK fishing and to replace a system of management that has become dominated by big vessels with no connection to local areas and provides no significant benefits to either the local or the national economy. Instead, we should be looking to put in place a system that supports local communities and brings with it significant environmental, social and economic benefits.

Andrew George: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he is making his case. I entirely agree with the conclusion that he is reaching, but does he acknowledge that large producer organisations work well with local inshore under-10 metre boats in some parts of the country? Does he agree
	that it would be appropriate for those vessels to ensure that they keep a record of their catch of non-quota species forthwith, because it is inevitable in the years to come that they will be asked to demonstrate what fish they have been catching over a reference period?

Peter Aldous: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is wrong of me to tar all producer organisations with the same brush. Back in 1994 and 1996, it was probably wrong that the under-10s were not keeping such records, and they have learned a lesson from that.
	Based on the response from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, such a reform would in my view have public backing, as well as the support of fishing communities from all around the UK, and it would now have legal justification. Common fisheries policy reform, as well as setting out the courses for the elimination of discards and the introduction of a decentralised management system, also has the requirement for member states to allocate fishing quota taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations. This provides the framework for root and branch reform. I urge the Minister to pursue such a course and, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended in its 2011 report, to base these reform proposals on the needs of the inshore fleet, rather than on the existing patterns of work of the offshore fleet. DEFRA should identify those stocks and areas where a re-alignment of quota allocation would be of real benefit to the inshore fleet.
	To prevent the problems of the past recurring, there is a vital and urgent need for transparency. As a high priority, it is important that a publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions is published as soon as practicably possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to the progress being made in providing that by the end of the year, as has previously been stated. Without a clear register, it is incredibly difficult to see who is benefiting from the nation’s fish resource and to work out whether it is being properly shared out so as to get maximum social benefit. Such a register should establish what proportion of quota is currently held by non-fishermen. It would, I hope, at least dispel the urban myth that has grown up that football clubs hold quota. I urge that consideration be given to introducing a requirement that in future quota should be held only by active fishermen. A further proposal to consider is that in future DEFRA should make greater use of its powers to re-allocate unused quota in-year.
	For whatever reason, we have allowed an inexplicable system to develop, with a barely comprehensible trading method inside producer organisations which is both complex and opaque. We need to consign this to the dustbin of history and move forward to a more professionally managed system with direct licensing from the Crown to fishermen, with more clarity over who has what. This way the public can get the best out of what is, after all, their fishery. There is a need for a proper formal mechanism to grant fishermen new fishing rights. A new fisheries Act may be necessary to achieve that
	It would be helpful to know the timetable that the Minister has in mind for coming forward with proposals on which the industry can be consulted and which this
	House can debate. It is important that the right decisions are made and a management system put in place that provides fishing communities all around the coast with a sustainable future and ensures that the inshore fleet is able not only to survive, but to flourish.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on delivering a very powerful speech. I agree with everything he has said. It is undoubtedly crucial that we shift the balance in favour of the smaller fishermen, as he has described. Another opportunity for levelling the playing field, which has gone under-reported but which results from the Minister’s negotiations in the CFP reform discussions, means effectively that laws applied by our Government in our waters, which previously have only ever applied to our fishermen, now must apply to everyone, so foreign vessels operating in our waters must for the first time adhere to British law. That surely is another string in the bow of the smaller fishermen.

Peter Aldous: I acknowledge that point, well made by my hon. Friend. The decision is helpful. Also, we now have a sensible framework in the common fisheries policy. I pay tribute to Maria Damanaki, the Commissioner, for taking a lead on that, and again to the Minister for fighting hard when the negotiations got tough on that issue. As a result, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
	In conclusion, we need to get on with this, because time is very much of the essence. In years gone by it was possible to cross from one side of Lowestoft’s Hamilton dock to the other by walking from boat to boat. Today the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. However, if we now put the right system of management in place, fishing will be able to play a continuing role in the future economy not only of Lowestoft, but of many other communities across the four nations.

Richard Benyon: I start by paying great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). His constituency might have a much diminished fleet, but he is a worthy champion of it and has stood up for it on many occasions. Having visited Lowestoft’s fishing industry with him, I have seen at first hand his passion to see it return to economic viability—to flourish, as he puts it—and to protect it from the complications of a system that has failed it, failed the marine environment and failed the coastal communities on which it depends.
	I was of course pleased that the judgment in the judicial review between the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations and my Department went in our favour. That completely vindicates the decision I took in 2011 to realign consistently underutilised quota from producer organisations and allocate it to those able to fish it. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are not talking about a huge amount of quota, but we have won on a key point of principle. I entirely agree with the view, commonly held across the House, that we are talking about a national asset. It is my Department’s job to allocate fishing opportunities in this country in as fair a way as possible. The judgment might still be subject to an appeal, but I will set out what I intend to do to ensure that we can maximise the value of our fishing quotas and the sustainability of the fleet while
	guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those who have access to this priceless public resource.
	My Department has undertaken a wide range of initiatives in recent years, and I would like to set them out briefly, along with some of the other projects being undertaken by different stakeholders. Work to finalise the reallocation of the fixed quota allocation units had been put on hold pending the outcome of the judicial review. That work will now proceed to allow the transfer of units from producer organisations to the under-10 metre English pool. I encourage the industry, particularly producer organisations, to support that work. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about the many producer organisations that have under-10 metre vessels in their membership and that work well with them whether or not they are in those organisations.
	I previously updated the House on 17 June 2013 on the vital progress to secure radical reform of the common fisheries policy. I do not underestimate the challenges fishermen will face as we adapt to the new provisions, especially those relating to the discard ban. We are already working with the industry in the UK on a range of projects, including catch quotas, more selective gears and the identification of discard rates in our fisheries, to ensure that we can make the new system work effectively for the whole fleet. However, the deal that has been agreed—to introduce a ban on discards, manage our fish stocks sustainably and manage our seas on a regional basis—will benefit all of our fleet, large and small.
	At long last our fishing industry will be able to have some certainty as to its future. Although the introduction of a ban on discards has taken the headlines, the requirement to manage our seas to maximum sustainable yield by 2020 is perhaps the most significant element of the reform. When we look back on this period, perhaps in a decade or two, we will see that as the really big win in returning our seas to sustainable harvesting of wild fish. Fishermen will have certainty over the future of the stocks they fish and depend on.
	In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday we successfully secured a general approach on the European maritime and fisheries fund at the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The agreement means that the EMFF will be an effective tool for supporting delivery of CFP reform, and it clears the way for discussions between the presidency, Commission, and Parliament to continue in the autumn.
	As part of a package of measures to reform domestic fisheries, my Department is running a pilot community quota scheme, working with a group of fishermen from Ramsgate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for her support for that scheme. She has been a tireless supporter of the fishing industry in her constituency—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is in his—and of the under-10 metre fleet in general. The purpose of the scheme was to give a group of inshore fishermen some quota from the under-10 metre pool and for them to manage it themselves. The scheme ran from 1 June 2012 to 31 May this year, and has been extended in response to calls for the pilot to continue from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and the Ramsgate fishermen group. It will now operate until 31 December with
	support from the Fish Producers’ Organisation. The group will have full management control over the quotas it has been allocated.
	The project demonstrated key benefits such as more flexibility and greater certainty in fishing activities that supported better business planning and efficiency. The group preferred the management arrangement under the pilot, which was reflected in its request for it to continue. The offer by the FPO demonstrates the willingness of producer organisations to help the inshore fleet, which is a welcome development. By working together, different sectors of the industry can bring about initiatives that help maximise their catches, get better value for their fish, and promote a common interest in managing those resources effectively. The outcome of the pilot will be used to help us determine ways in which we may seek to manage the inshore fleet, and the quota available to it in the future.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently funding an activity-based research project piloting a community supported fishery approach on the south coast. Under that project, communities in Brighton and Chichester have formed co-operatives through which local fishers supply weekly boxes of fish directly to subscribing members. As well as testing the appetite for consumers to work with their local fishers in that way, and sharing both the risks and benefits faced by the fishers, the project also provides a mechanism to create a market for underutilised or discarded fish species. The project is due to finish at the end of July, but the co-operatives and fishers involved have found the approach beneficial, and intend to continue without Government support in the future. I welcome that and congratulate them on the way they have used Government funding and will carry forward the project.
	Last year I and the other UK fisheries Ministers announced our intention to produce a publicly accessible register that would show exactly who had ownership of fixed quota allocation units in the United Kingdom. DEFRA and Ministers in the devolved Administrations continue to work on that with the industry, and it remains our intention and aim to publish that register by the end of 2013. The public have a right to know who receives the UK’s fishing quotas, and I am delighted that we are on track to do that. I will keep the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney informed of our progress.
	I also thank other organisations for their efforts in helping to secure a bright future for the nation’s fisheries resources. The Marine Stewardship Council has launched phase 3 of its Project Inshore initiative. The purpose of the project is to assess all inshore fish stocks in England and Wales so as to determine their preparedness for certification. The aim is not to seek certification for all stocks, but to produce a road map outlining the status of the fisheries in order to develop best practice so they can be managed sustainably. That is a timely project, supported by a range of stakeholders such as Seafish, NGOs and retailers.
	Fishing into the Future is another initiative that focuses on the viability of our fishing communities and the sustainable use of fish stocks. It was launched by the Prince of Wales’s international sustainability unit in collaboration with Seafish, and aims to encourage sustainability and marketing efforts through the exchange of new knowledge and ideas between fishers, scientists, fisheries managers and supply chain experts.
	I welcome such initiatives and my Department is pleased to be part of them. Making sure that our stocks are exploited at optimal sustainable levels and reallocating quota to maximise their use is only going so far towards addressing the challenges that the inshore and, indeed, other fishing sectors face. We also need to ensure that our fleet size matches the fishing opportunities available. For that reason, my Department is exploring ways in which this can be achieved, and we will be discussing it with the industry.
	The task now facing us is a challenging one. Let us not run away from that fact; it is well understood by the fishing industry and by everybody who minds about the health of our seas. It is important that we all work together to grasp the opportunities provided by CFP reform and other initiatives. I hope that now that the court case is behind us we can all work together to make sure that we have a meaningful future for our fishing industry. Let us not hide from the fact that there are many fishers in the over-10 metre sector as well as the under-10 metre sector who have found life next to
	impossible—who are hanging on by their fingertips, as I have said before. The opportunity now exists for them to see a future that will really make a difference and encourage future generations.
	I cannot guarantee that people will be able to walk across Hamilton dock in Lowestoft in the way that they could in the past. It is possible, however, that people will see that this is a business they want to go into and can manage in the same way that any other small business can be managed. However, they can do so only if there is a rising biomass of fish in the sea. Our overriding determination must be to ensure that fish stocks increase, and then the fishing opportunities that we allocate as fairly as possible can be of much more economic benefit to fishermen fishing in harmony with nature. In recent years, great inroads have been made into improving the sustainability of fisheries, and I really hope that we can build on that excellent work. I commend my hon. Friend again for bringing this important matter to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.